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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - DF: Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze - Switch vs Wii U

curl-6 said:

Tropical Freeze was never an especially pretty game even by Wii U standards, but 1080p docked and a perfect 60fps is nice I suppose.

Really is overpriced though.

Really?  When I first played the game at release, I thought they were trying to make it too pretty.  Seeing every strand of hair on DK in HD in the cutscenes was almost offputting in my opinion.  I don't need for a mascot character in a platformer to look like an actual real live ape to enjoy said platformer.

I do agree that jacking up the price for the Switch remaster is a mistake though.  Already having it on Wii U, I'm going to pass on this one.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

Fixed, I added comment.

Nintendo looks on Wii U ports like on brand new games not ports, and this games are not aimed to ex Wii U owners primarily (maybe if they want full handheld mode) but to huge majority of Switch owners that didnt had Wii U.

I agree that would be better its $50, but to be fair you with Switch version getting full handheld version of game alongside full home console mode.

So all new games on Switch should cost more than on PS4 and X1 since they get are only console mode. And the cross purchase that you can do on PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC should cost over 100 USD per your logic right?

And it is BS to defend Nintendo looking at ports as brand new games when they aren't, and for the case in point it's a very basic port. While Activision releases 3 Crash, fully remade for 40 and in Switch will be playable dock and undock...

Also, please tell us what differences are between the full handheld version and the full home console mode?

It is almost like a collection of several GOTY games made as one.

Miyamotoo said:

Switch even in portable mode is more powerful than Wii U, period. Power of hardware cant depand from game to game, what can be difirent from game to game is what kind of port is, how much they will push hardware, will they pay atentione on battery life, if is lazy port, if port used most of hardware from is getting ported so port to totally different platform cant gave best results...

Bayonetta 2 is definitely more demanding game than DKTF, also MK8D is also more demanding game than 2D platformer.

What Digital Foundry wrote:

https://www.resetera.com/posts/7142617/

https://www.resetera.com/posts/7146747/

You are falling for the fallacy "I think it's prettier so it must be more demanding", without looking at the console load you can't be certain of it.

You could have 100 games you think is better or prettier or more demanding than one specific game, but in the end that one is the more demanding one.

No, I dont say that but definitely have extra value compared to Wii U, especially when we compare same game. PS4 offers only home console mode, Switch offers full handheld mode and full home console mode, its fact. PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC is not same like what Switch offers, Switch is just one console and it works with evre game without additional hardware, costs or requirements (like internet).

I dont defend them I just saying whats their point of view, they act like Wii U didnt exist beacuse its failure with very limited user base and they looking on Wii U ports like brand new games, and in way they are if you didnt had Wii U, Switch months ago already passed Wii U install base.

"Tell us"!? Most people knows difference, I really cant help you if you dont know main difference between handheld and home console play.

 

You talking nonsense, I never said anything about whats more prettier, its simple DKTF 2D platform game cant be more demanding than 3D action game like Bayonetta 2 or racing game like MK8D.

Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 25 April 2018

Jumpin said:
SpokenTruth said:

The screen itself doesn't but the image is rendered internally at the higher resolution and then reduced back to the screen resolution.  It's a form of anti-aliasing but it's very taxing on hardware...more so than any other form of AA.

Here is the difference supersampling can make. 

https://www.technopat.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ssaa-anti-aliasingnedir.png

Ah, I see. So it’s blending the pixels. E.G. if you had a screen of 5 pixels across, but the image was 6 pixels, 3 blue, 3 brown, the supersampling would essentially blend the middle pixel to be blue and brown.

Is that correct?

 

I think what threw me off is the word "render"

It is actually rendered at the higher resolution.  That's why it takes such a taxing hit to hardware.  You need more video memory and bandwidth than what makes sense at native resolution making it hard to even do to begin with on a locked spec'ed device.

Miyamotoo said:
SpokenTruth said:

The screen itself doesn't but the image is rendered internally at the higher resolution and then reduced back to the screen resolution.  It's a form of anti-aliasing but it's very taxing on hardware...more so than any other form of AA.

Here is the difference supersampling can make. 

https://www.technopat.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ssaa-anti-aliasingnedir.png

To be fair supersampling on 6.2" screen loose purpose, not to mention that rendering at higher resolution would kill battery even faster.

I'm not advocating its use on Switch, merely explaining what it is as some were confused how you can render above a screen's native resolution. 

The pixel density is already high enough that most AA is irrelevant anyway.  A 4K gaming monitor also would not need as much AA for the same reason. And yes, as I mentioned before, that would take a big hit to the battery (and frame rate).



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

So all new games on Switch should cost more than on PS4 and X1 since they get are only console mode. And the cross purchase that you can do on PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC should cost over 100 USD per your logic right?

And it is BS to defend Nintendo looking at ports as brand new games when they aren't, and for the case in point it's a very basic port. While Activision releases 3 Crash, fully remade for 40 and in Switch will be playable dock and undock...

Also, please tell us what differences are between the full handheld version and the full home console mode?

It is almost like a collection of several GOTY games made as one.

You are falling for the fallacy "I think it's prettier so it must be more demanding", without looking at the console load you can't be certain of it.

You could have 100 games you think is better or prettier or more demanding than one specific game, but in the end that one is the more demanding one.

No, I dont say that but definitely have extra value compared to Wii U, especially when we compare same game. PS4 offers only home console mode, Switch offers full handheld mode and full home console mode, its fact. PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC is not same like what Switch offers, Switch is just one console and it works with evre game without additional hardware, costs or requirements (like internet).

I dont defend them I just saying whats their point of view, they act like Wii U didnt exist beacuse its failure with very limited user base and they looking on Wii U ports like brand new games, and in way they are if you didnt had Wii U, Switch months ago already passed Wii U install base.

"Tell us"!? Most people knows difference, I really cant help you if you dont know main difference between handheld and home console play.

You talking nonsense, I never said anything about whats more prettier, its simple DKTF 2D platform game cant be more demanding than 3D action game like Bayonetta 2 or racing game like MK8D.

You are confusion value with price and cost. But please entertain me on how a game that you buy once and can play in 3 platforms have "less" value than a game you buy once can only play in one device but the device itself plays in more options?? So should PC games be more expensive since ever you could buy on Steam and play in multiple HW and/or use a notebook to play on the go, or on the power outlet or plugged to the TV? And since we are at it, should the games on Wii and WiiU cost less than in PS360 and X1PS4 because they had lower performance? Or should the games on Switch cost more than on X1PS4 because you can play on the go and docked? Or should games on X1PS4 cost more because you can also play them on X1X and PS4Pro?

Nope, no one here would be able to explain the difference between the HH and the Console mode of DK, because they don't exist. It's a single game that you can play docked or on the go.

Nope, not talking nonsense, If it wasn't you, it was someone with the very same discourse about "simple" vs "complex", "2D" vs "3D", etc. More demanding game is related to how much of the processing power the games drains from the system, it may seem like being 3D, fast paced, photorealistic should be more demanding, but that doesn't make it be the case everytime. I believe this discussion was made on a Doom Switch thread where someone was defending that a game running at sub-720p and 30fps was more demanding than a game at 1080p60fps on the same HW, which is obvious, because if the first wasn't utilizing all the resources then it would have space for more res or frames... but the other person was talking about the other game genre, collor pallete, etc saying it was more demanding (which is the confusion between perception and reality).

You may say otherwise, but all you have done in your post is defend them.

SpokenTruth said:
Jumpin said:

Ah, I see. So it’s blending the pixels. E.G. if you had a screen of 5 pixels across, but the image was 6 pixels, 3 blue, 3 brown, the supersampling would essentially blend the middle pixel to be blue and brown.

Is that correct?

 

I think what threw me off is the word "render"

It is actually rendered at the higher resolution.  That's why it takes such a taxing hit to hardware.  You need more video memory and bandwidth than what makes sense at native resolution making it hard to even do to begin with on a locked spec'ed device.

Miyamotoo said:

To be fair supersampling on 6.2" screen loose purpose, not to mention that rendering at higher resolution would kill battery even faster.

I'm not advocating its use on Switch, merely explaining what it is as some were confused how you can render above a screen's native resolution. 

The pixel density is already high enough that most AA is irrelevant anyway.  A 4K gaming monitor also would not need as much AA for the same reason. And yes, as I mentioned before, that would take a big hit to the battery (and frame rate).

The pixel density is so high.... that even cellphones with smaller screen present resolutions higher than fullHD...



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."

If you’re worried about the cost, just wait a year or two until the price is reduced drastically. Clearly time was never of the essence for you with this game so why are you concerned about its price in the first week now? $10 is not make-or-break for a large number of consumers.



Around the Network

Nintendo needs to implement a $40 standard price tag for ports of their Wii U games. I'd be interested in getting some Wii U ports, but the only one I bought (or will buy) for even close to $60 is Mario Kart. 4 year old games are supposed to cost less, not MORE than they did when they came out! so insane. Nintendo really needs to offer better deals on their old games. The other systems are sooo much better about this. By the time a Nintendo franchise game has been out for four years it should absolutely have a price cut, and instead we have a 4 year old game coming out on a whole new system with a price increase! That's just a big FU to Switch owners.



Miyamotoo said:
DonFerrari said:

So all new games on Switch should cost more than on PS4 and X1 since they get are only console mode. And the cross purchase that you can do on PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC should cost over 100 USD per your logic right?

And it is BS to defend Nintendo looking at ports as brand new games when they aren't, and for the case in point it's a very basic port. While Activision releases 3 Crash, fully remade for 40 and in Switch will be playable dock and undock...

Also, please tell us what differences are between the full handheld version and the full home console mode?

It is almost like a collection of several GOTY games made as one.

You are falling for the fallacy "I think it's prettier so it must be more demanding", without looking at the console load you can't be certain of it.

You could have 100 games you think is better or prettier or more demanding than one specific game, but in the end that one is the more demanding one.

No, I dont say that but definitely have extra value compared to Wii U, especially when we compare same game. PS4 offers only home console mode, Switch offers full handheld mode and full home console mode, its fact. PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC is not same like what Switch offers, Switch is just one console and it works with evre game without additional hardware, costs or requirements (like internet).

I dont defend them I just saying whats their point of view, they act like Wii U didnt exist beacuse its failure with very limited user base and they looking on Wii U ports like brand new games, and in way they are if you didnt had Wii U, Switch months ago already passed Wii U install base.

"Tell us"!? Most people knows difference, I really cant help you if you dont know main difference between handheld and home console play.

 

You talking nonsense, I never said anything about whats more prettier, its simple DKTF 2D platform game cant be more demanding than 3D action game like Bayonetta 2 or racing game like MK8D.

I'm not one to defend the poor performance of wii u, as a wii u owner I've experienced slow loading, missing detail, terrible frame rates even compared to 360 and ps3 but I thought their was at least some elements to the wii u that can beat the Switch in portable mode. The higher memory bandwidth of the 32MB of edram, higher gflops of the gpu and the simple fact the Switch relies on heavier compression due to lack of storage plus needs to consider battery runtime which often motivates the developer to run at lower performance levels. The Switch portable version of this game is running sub 720P despite the portable screen being 720p. So no it certainly isn't a fact that the Switch in portable should outperform the wii u especially for a mainly 2D platformer like this.



Slownenberg said:
Nintendo needs to implement a $40 standard price tag for ports of their Wii U games. I'd be interested in getting some Wii U ports, but the only one I bought (or will buy) for even close to $60 is Mario Kart. 4 year old games are supposed to cost less, not MORE than they did when they came out! so insane. Nintendo really needs to offer better deals on their old games. The other systems are sooo much better about this. By the time a Nintendo franchise game has been out for four years it should absolutely have a price cut, and instead we have a 4 year old game coming out on a whole new system with a price increase! That's just a big FU to Switch owners.

On this... Nintendo fanbase defends that they keep the 60usd even 4 years after release to keep the value of the game... while every other customer is pleased with cuts and paying less. Some twist logic.



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."

DonFerrari said:
Slownenberg said:
Nintendo needs to implement a $40 standard price tag for ports of their Wii U games. I'd be interested in getting some Wii U ports, but the only one I bought (or will buy) for even close to $60 is Mario Kart. 4 year old games are supposed to cost less, not MORE than they did when they came out! so insane. Nintendo really needs to offer better deals on their old games. The other systems are sooo much better about this. By the time a Nintendo franchise game has been out for four years it should absolutely have a price cut, and instead we have a 4 year old game coming out on a whole new system with a price increase! That's just a big FU to Switch owners.

On this... Nintendo fanbase defends that they keep the 60usd even 4 years after release to keep the value of the game... while every other customer is pleased with cuts and paying less. Some twist logic.

Stop generalizing millions of people into a single entity. There are multiple people in the "Nintendo fanbase" in this thread alone who are saying it shouldnt be $60.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Barkley said:
"The visual design works well at 720p and the bump to 1080p allows smaller details to shine but it might surprise you how subtle the jump in pixel count can appear in many scenes. Aside from these minor visual tweaks and the increase in resolution, there isn't much else in the way of visual enhancements."

"Visuals aside, there is another major enhancement worth discussing - loading times. Starting the game has a 40 second loading time with DKC running from disc on Wii U, which is cut down to a mere 11 seconds on Switch."

So a minor upgrade in graphics, but it loads a lot faster. Wish they'd thrown in DKC: Returns with it, considering it's a full price release.

It will probably sell enough at full price anyway. So Nintendo doesn't really have to do anything and they are taking full advantage of that. Sony did the same with the GOW 3 and TLOU remaster. Nintendo is a business and its primary objective is making money and releasing the game at full price will probably make them more money.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar