One big, "Meh," from me. I'm getting rather tired of having Digital Foundry numbers as the basis for internet kerfuffles instead of the minor disappointments they are. We just went through this on Wonderful 101 for some silly reason. Games are games, not a set of benchmarks. If it does take away from the experience, by all means note it like it was in Xenoblade 2. But, no, we certainly don't "Need to talk about" Xenoblade's resolution.
It'll probably get a patch soon enough either way.
It's important to know what you are buying, Digital Foundry provides the empirical set of analysis so we can appropriately make the best decision to our individualistic needs.
And yes. Some of us are resolution hippies. Yes. Resolutions of 360P or less deserve criticism.
I like digital foundry but they unfortunately seem to have a very negative effect on fanboys and console wars.
They are just doing a job, providing the facts after gathering the information.
They tend to be pretty impartial of platforms.
For me, fps are way more important than resolution so anything under 30 feels jarring.
It drops below 30fps. But it's not frequent.
Well if it was just a remaster, it would probably be something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWfCOHJTSq4
But they decided to remake it based on the XC2 engine, which don't perform well on the Switch. Maybe they wanted to work on the engine once more after Torna, and to keep the relasing date short, decided to go for recreating the first game with a XC2 style approach.
And overall, resolution doesn't mean anything today, Spider-man on PS4 run at 900p and is one of the most beautiful games ever made, and Jedi Fallen Order runs at 586p on the Xbox One, so below HD for a 2019 game. But still looks great.
When you reach a point in the low-end of the resolution spectrum, the visuals start to suffer as the assets cannot be showcased in the best possible light.
Image can look soft or even pixelated to boot.
For some, it's not going to matter. For others... Most certainly.
And yeah. 586P on Xbox One isn't good either.
While it's not a big deal to me, I can understand how frustrating it can be for some gamers. Who wants to play a blurry version of a game from 2010? Handheld performance of the game is solid so far for me, but it does get very blurry at times much like Xeno 2 but not as bad. What I don't like is people having an opinion that the game's resolution needs work or the game's geometry is still kinda rough, and some textures look outdated, and for others to act like those aren't valid criticisms.
Monolith Soft even said in an interview that they couldn't remake everything. This is a smaller team on XCDE. Even with all that being considered, this game docked for the most part is beautiful.
On a final note, while the Torna Engine is better, I wonder if moving to UE4 and eventually UE5 would help Monolith Soft better optimize their games. It sure helped Square Enix.
Considering how old the game was... And it was essentially released on revised Gamecube technology that came out almost 20 years ago, I think the geometry and texturing looks good all things considered. We can't expect it to look like a 2020 AAA game.
There are still a few textures from the original version of the game which apparently looks jarring, those deserve criticism.
But the geometric complexity is expected from a remaster, some aspects there have been large gains on this front, others not much. I think the increases on this front is fully expected of a remaster.
It's just that the game engine isn't very well optimized for the Switch which holds back that resolution and framerate... And potential visuals.
"Man this game looks great visually"
*finds out it's 720P*
"This game looks like shit!"
A big issue is that these games aren't advertised with all their pixel-crawling glory, they are often sharp and shown in the best possible light. It's marketing 101.
We have a word for that, it is called a demaster, Wonderfull 101 received a great one.
Wouldn't call it a demaster, there are legitimate improvements in every aspect, it just could have been "more".
I'm not buying the game, and 720p doesn't bother me, but I am a little bothered that a team that once pushed the hardware of the Wii and Wii U to astounding heights can't seem to get good results out of the Switch so far.
Granted, it could just be the fact that Xenoblade DE and 2 were developed by smaller teams in shorter timeframes, but it's a shame Monolith have declined a lot in the technical standard of their releases. Hopefully their next game breaks the slump and delivers the wow factor they used to be known for.
They aren't willing to build the engine from the ground up to fully leverage the Switch's capabilities.
I'll buy the game when it's a bit lower in price...
Trying to build a library of exclusives for the Switch and leave the multi-plats to technically superior platforms, but you also want the exclusives to be the absolute best they can be if they are exclusive to a platform, constructive criticism is one way to ensure that... And I think Monolith are getting that message right now.
There might be a few patches put out (I.E. Doom/Witcher) that could improve things yet, who knows.
This is mainly a Nintendo fanbase forum so I'm not surprised by the poll results, but stuff like this bothered me back in Halo 2 and Halo 3 when they used funny resolutions. I distinctly remember my favorite games having those flaws which were by no means immersion breaking, but I would definitely notice it today. This remaster and the Wonderful 101 kind of showcase why people are interested in Nintendo making a Switch Pro.
In Halo 3's case, I had a 32" 1366x768P television which was a pretty standard mid-range panel at the time... So Halo 3 being at 1152×640 still looked fairly crisp.
Plus Halo 3 enjoyed being one of the best looking games at the time with it's HDR Lighting effects, Tessellated water and so forth, so it still looked the goods.
But if Halo 3 released today with today's move towards 65" and larger 3840x2160 displays in the mid range market, it would get criticized for it's resolution and visuals.
As time goes on, our expectations change with newer technology... And Halo 3 was a visual powerhouse back in 2007. Today? Not so much. The bar got moved.
Halo 2 could have been better, it didn't live up to the trailers visuals, but it's resolution was a standard 480P for the era.
If that's the case, then you shouldn't have been impressed by games that made significant concessions in certain aspects in order to excel at what the developers were focusing on.
Knowing a system's capabilities doesn't mean you can't be impressed when those capabilities are pushed to deliver great results.
Links Awakening comes to mind, it's actually a very charming visual package, it's not pushing 4k and 8192x8192 textures with Global Illumination, but what we did get was a real stunner of a game with it's impressive material shaders and DoF use, it actually did impress me that I was playing such a game on a hand held.
And it wasn't even at native resolution either.