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

Forums - Nintendo - Digital Foundry takes a closer look at Breath of the Wild

DonFerrari said:
Pemalite said:

There would be concessions.
The most readily apparant would likely be texturing and the lighting.
The WiiU has a more efficient GPU than the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 to the point where even if it had less flops, it would still be faster.
It has better texture compression, which when coupled with it's larger system memory capacity would be one of the major concessions a developer would make porting it to the other consoles.

And the WiiU also has superior geometry performance, so models will likely be a little simpler on the 360/PS3.

Lighting and shaders will be a big one, the WiiU has the shader grunt to handle more complex effects and more of them on screen.

Overall, it would technically be the same game, but it would still look the best on the WiiU, it's simply more modern and more capable machine than the 360/PS3.

Agreed... but considering it's a cell shaded game and that textures seem simpler than other games worked by PS360, wouldn't that end up becoming a very small concession and geometry diminishing returns also end up as a small concession?

Perhaps end product graphical punch wouldn't differ more than 10% (ass pulled) difference between WiiU and PS360?

Well, if I may step in briefly, I think there are two things to consider. One is that the game is only partially cell shaded. The grass (sorta) and characters. You would still have to contend with the muddying of all other textures and LOD textures.

Second, the LOD changes' effect on things would be more severe depending on where you were and the layout of the land.  In Skyrim, for example, LOD quality drops off a cliff at about half the length of the Skyrim map's distance.  So looking from Solitude to Throat of the World and you see some really, really basic geometry and super muddy textures and a complete loss of the cloud details around that mountain.  The Zelda map is considerably larger than Skyrim and yet you have far more detail on Death Mountain when looking from the Great Plateau, which is almost on the complete opposite side of the map.  You would probably see similar concessions on the LOD quality side of things to get Zelda on the PS360.  Now, with Skyrim these changes aren't that big an impact cause of the lay of the land.  Rarely can you see from one end of Skyrim to the other.  But Zelda has a lot of plains and you can climb to any peak and you start on a high elevation.  So the loss of distant details would be a considerable impact to the overall quality on display.  How important that is to you would depend on you but I would say this:  the Wii U version would be the noticeable and undeniably superior version with better and more prolific use of effects and higher detail and draw distance.  The PS360 version would be serviceable for most probably, but not a particularly attractive option.   



Around the Network
GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

Only the characters in Breath of the Wild are cel shaded; rock, snow, trees, pavement, water, dirt, etc all use regular textures. And rendering a world as big and detailed as BotW takes more than just CPU grunt, it also places considerable demands on RAM and GPU power, two areas where Wii U exceeds PS3 and 360.

Also, GOW3 looks as good as it does because it is highly scripted; levels are linear, the developers control the camera so they can always micro-manage exactly what's on screen at any given time, and a lot its eye candy is smoke and mirrors. It looks flashy but its not as technically demanding as an open world game like Breath of the Wild.

It requires less RAM for streaming, but the sheer number of polygons and details, and the great use of lighting and textures plus all the enemies on screen at once, it is definitely a VERY demanding game for its hardware and would have been demanding had it been on Wii U.

There are many linear games, but none of them try to do what God of War 3 does so successfully. Just about any scene with titans in the game are damn impressive, as those titans are not just gigantic but also very well animated, and that requires a alot of resources.

Not just that but the particle effects are really good as well, and there are dynamic light sources too, such as when you use the Head of Helios.

Also it does all of this running at 45fps while Zeldaa runs at 30fps.

GoW3 does push the hardware pretty damn hard, but like many great looking games, it does so by making clever sacrifices and structuring the entire experience around maximizing eye candy. It intentionally avoids anything that might draw resources away from cramming effects on screen; the camera angles, level designs, interactions, and events are all rigidly controlled, and hence a lot of its world is one-sided set dressing and canned parlour tricks. Breath of the Wild does not have this luxury; it has to process a fully explorable open world stretching as far as the eye can see, packed with dense vegetation, dynamic lighting and shadowing that change with time of day and weather, real-time reflections in water, etc.



Nuvendil said:
DonFerrari said:

Agreed... but considering it's a cell shaded game and that textures seem simpler than other games worked by PS360, wouldn't that end up becoming a very small concession and geometry diminishing returns also end up as a small concession?

Perhaps end product graphical punch wouldn't differ more than 10% (ass pulled) difference between WiiU and PS360?

Well, if I may step in briefly, I think there are two things to consider. One is that the game is only partially cell shaded. The grass (sorta) and characters. You would still have to contend with the muddying of all other textures and LOD textures.

Second, the LOD changes' effect on things would be more severe depending on where you were and the layout of the land.  In Skyrim, for example, LOD quality drops off a cliff at about half the length of the Skyrim map's distance.  So looking from Solitude to Throat of the World and you see some really, really basic geometry and super muddy textures and a complete loss of the cloud details around that mountain.  The Zelda map is considerably larger than Skyrim and yet you have far more detail on Death Mountain when looking from the Great Plateau, which is almost on the complete opposite side of the map.  You would probably see similar concessions on the LOD quality side of things to get Zelda on the PS360.  Now, with Skyrim these changes aren't that big an impact cause of the lay of the land.  Rarely can you see from one end of Skyrim to the other.  But Zelda has a lot of plains and you can climb to any peak and you start on a high elevation.  So the loss of distant details would be a considerable impact to the overall quality on display.  How important that is to you would depend on you but I would say this:  the Wii U version would be the noticeable and undeniably superior version with better and more prolific use of effects and higher detail and draw distance.  The PS360 version would be serviceable for most probably, but not a particularly attractive option.   

To be fair though... Skyrim uses a heavily modified Gamebryo engine... And having intimate knowledge of that engine, it was never great at handling LoD to begin with.
But I do agree, that textures would take a hit. The WiiU simply is better at texturing thanks to compression and more memory.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Pemalite said:
Nuvendil said:

Well, if I may step in briefly, I think there are two things to consider. One is that the game is only partially cell shaded. The grass (sorta) and characters. You would still have to contend with the muddying of all other textures and LOD textures.

Second, the LOD changes' effect on things would be more severe depending on where you were and the layout of the land.  In Skyrim, for example, LOD quality drops off a cliff at about half the length of the Skyrim map's distance.  So looking from Solitude to Throat of the World and you see some really, really basic geometry and super muddy textures and a complete loss of the cloud details around that mountain.  The Zelda map is considerably larger than Skyrim and yet you have far more detail on Death Mountain when looking from the Great Plateau, which is almost on the complete opposite side of the map.  You would probably see similar concessions on the LOD quality side of things to get Zelda on the PS360.  Now, with Skyrim these changes aren't that big an impact cause of the lay of the land.  Rarely can you see from one end of Skyrim to the other.  But Zelda has a lot of plains and you can climb to any peak and you start on a high elevation.  So the loss of distant details would be a considerable impact to the overall quality on display.  How important that is to you would depend on you but I would say this:  the Wii U version would be the noticeable and undeniably superior version with better and more prolific use of effects and higher detail and draw distance.  The PS360 version would be serviceable for most probably, but not a particularly attractive option.   

To be fair though... Skyrim uses a heavily modified Gamebryo engine... And having intimate knowledge of that engine, it was never great at handling LoD to begin with.
But I do agree, that textures would take a hit. The WiiU simply is better at texturing thanks to compression and more memory.

Oh trust me, I worked with Oblivion and Skyrim on MERP for years, I know how oddly limited that engine can be in some ways.  It wouldn't be identical losses, but LOD is a typical sacrifice made since it does let you shave texture resolution and polygons while keeping some upclose details in tact. 



Nuvendil said:
DonFerrari said:

Agreed... but considering it's a cell shaded game and that textures seem simpler than other games worked by PS360, wouldn't that end up becoming a very small concession and geometry diminishing returns also end up as a small concession?

Perhaps end product graphical punch wouldn't differ more than 10% (ass pulled) difference between WiiU and PS360?

Well, if I may step in briefly, I think there are two things to consider. One is that the game is only partially cell shaded. The grass (sorta) and characters. You would still have to contend with the muddying of all other textures and LOD textures.

Second, the LOD changes' effect on things would be more severe depending on where you were and the layout of the land.  In Skyrim, for example, LOD quality drops off a cliff at about half the length of the Skyrim map's distance.  So looking from Solitude to Throat of the World and you see some really, really basic geometry and super muddy textures and a complete loss of the cloud details around that mountain.  The Zelda map is considerably larger than Skyrim and yet you have far more detail on Death Mountain when looking from the Great Plateau, which is almost on the complete opposite side of the map.  You would probably see similar concessions on the LOD quality side of things to get Zelda on the PS360.  Now, with Skyrim these changes aren't that big an impact cause of the lay of the land.  Rarely can you see from one end of Skyrim to the other.  But Zelda has a lot of plains and you can climb to any peak and you start on a high elevation.  So the loss of distant details would be a considerable impact to the overall quality on display.  How important that is to you would depend on you but I would say this:  the Wii U version would be the noticeable and undeniably superior version with better and more prolific use of effects and higher detail and draw distance.  The PS360 version would be serviceable for most probably, but not a particularly attractive option.   

No problem, butt in my friend.

Thanks for the inputs. Yep the loss of LoD would be even greater at distance because of not only memory but even processing capability and the general impact could be sensible, but how much someone would feel about it could vary on their preference for details in the broad area or closer to where he is, etc. My comment about cell shaded is just that it is a little easier and cheaper to get around hw limitations on the cell shaded than on photorealistic situation



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network

I have to say, the art direction is absolutely astounding, can't wait to see this in action on my new TV! Love the direction they've taken with the visuals, and the gameplay looks rock-solid as well.



Mummelmann said:
I have to say, the art direction is absolutely astounding, can't wait to see this in action on my new TV! Love the direction they've taken with the visuals, and the gameplay looks rock-solid as well.

When they made Wind Waker, a lot of people were disappointed with the art style of the game, bashing it for its "kiddy" look. But I was always a fan. For the first time, we had a 3D game that really looked like a cartoon, and the animations and art style were very well all very on point and uncompromising for the direction they were going for. To this day, this game still has a very convincing graphics atyle that endures the passing of time.
 
But I also wished Nintendo would push things a bit further and make an adult Link game with more of an anime style. Years later, my wish is being granted. 

Not only that, but I wanted them to go back to the roots of the franchise, and take more inspiration from the first games than from the OoT formula they've been using since that game came out. And again, Nintendo seems to have granted my wish.

I couldn't be more hyped for a Zelda game than I am for Breath of the Wild. I will most likely get the NX version, depending on the controller gimmick they're going for this time around. But the Wii U version sure is a looker already.



Mummelmann said:
I have to say, the art direction is absolutely astounding, can't wait to see this in action on my new TV! Love the direction they've taken with the visuals, and the gameplay looks rock-solid as well.

Totaly agree, I cant wait to see NX version also. :)



DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Only the characters in Breath of the Wild are cel shaded; rock, snow, trees, pavement, water, dirt, etc all use regular textures. And rendering a world as big and detailed as BotW takes more than just CPU grunt, it also places considerable demands on RAM and GPU power, two areas where Wii U exceeds PS3 and 360.

Also, GOW3 looks as good as it does because it is highly scripted; levels are linear, the developers control the camera so they can always micro-manage exactly what's on screen at any given time, and a lot its eye candy is smoke and mirrors. It looks flashy but its not as technically demanding as an open world game like Breath of the Wild.

I doubt resolution would be the primary downgrade; I think the most noticeable cut would have to be level of detail. With half as much RAM, you couldn't fit as many assets into play at once, leading to a lot more pop-in.

Ok, I can agree that half the RAM could affect the LoD or the size of the world. But how much opmization and tricks would make the loss smaller is another point.

This being a Nintendo game, I suspect it will already be pretty optimized by the time it releases. Nintendo tend to be efficient coders, so I doubt there would be much room for further optimization on PS3/360 without resulting in noticeable visual cutbacks.



curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Ok, I can agree that half the RAM could affect the LoD or the size of the world. But how much opmization and tricks would make the loss smaller is another point.

This being a Nintendo game, I suspect it will already be pretty optimized by the time it releases. Nintendo tend to be efficient coders, so I doubt there would be much room for further optimization on PS3/360 without resulting in noticeable visual cutbacks.

Curl, I wasn't indicating that Nintendo didn't optimized. I'm just saying that the smaller resources with a team with also good programmers could minimize the loss.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."