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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - We Need to Talk About Xenoblade DE's Resolution

Tagged games:

 

How do you feel about 378-540p resolution in a major 2020 release?

Doesn't bother me at all. 33 52.38%
 
It's not great, but I'm g... 5 7.94%
 
I'm a little disappointed. 6 9.52%
 
It's a big let down. Real... 6 9.52%
 
This isn't acceptable for... 11 17.46%
 
I'm putting my Switch in the microwave. 2 3.17%
 
Total:63
hunter_alien on 29 May 2020
Pemalite said:
hunter_alien said:
If this is a 60$ release, I am sorry, but it is unacceptable in this stage. Looking at the DF video it became painfully obvious that it's a cash grab on Monolith's side. I am really sorry, but X2 looks poor and they should have taken their time to figure it out how to "remaster" a 2010 Wii game for it to run at 30FPS locked at 1080p docked mode and 720p handheld mode...

It doesn't even need to be 1080P and 720P.

1600x900@Docked and 1138x640@Portable respectively is perfectly adequate, even lower than that if they employ decent Anti-Aliasing and upscaling.

Depending on the complexity of the visuals (I.E. Low Geometry thus less pixel crawl), even 1280x720@Docked and 853x480@Portable is fine.

We need to keep in mind this is a Nintendo platform, the expectation that games on a Nintendo platform are going to chase industry standards in terms of resolution/framerates/graphics effects has been out of the window for almost 15 years now... And that is okay. What is important is "good enough".

Fair enough. But let's face it, it doesn't even come close to hitting those numbers. For me, 600p in handheld-mode is pretty much the low-limit. Mario + Rabbits ran at that resolution and it was pretty soft. Anything under that and it starts showing. 



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Around the Network
Pemalite on 29 May 2020
hunter_alien said:
Pemalite said:

It doesn't even need to be 1080P and 720P.

1600x900@Docked and 1138x640@Portable respectively is perfectly adequate, even lower than that if they employ decent Anti-Aliasing and upscaling.

Depending on the complexity of the visuals (I.E. Low Geometry thus less pixel crawl), even 1280x720@Docked and 853x480@Portable is fine.

We need to keep in mind this is a Nintendo platform, the expectation that games on a Nintendo platform are going to chase industry standards in terms of resolution/framerates/graphics effects has been out of the window for almost 15 years now... And that is okay. What is important is "good enough".

Fair enough. But let's face it, it doesn't even come close to hitting those numbers. For me, 600p in handheld-mode is pretty much the low-limit. Mario + Rabbits ran at that resolution and it was pretty soft. Anything under that and it starts showing. 

Links Awakening drops to 576p, but the art style hides that extremely well. Again, depends on the game and such and how much post-processing is done, not all games are the same.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Vodacixi on 29 May 2020
RolStoppable said:
Vodacixi said:

I find Digital Foundry's video quite too harsh on the game. I mean, everything they point out is true. However, I don't know what they expected from something they themselves call a remaster. They improved/changed textures, they redid the faces of characters, they have implemented new more realistic shadows and lightning, they have added water reflections, AA and Motion Blur, grass is no longer a JPEG texture, they increased the resolution (even if they could have done a better job on that front), they remastered the soundtrack, they added 12-20 hours of story, they completely redid the menus and UI... and yet, throught the video they keep manifesting slight disappointment over every area they talk about.

Excuse me... what are you talking about? This game did A TON more than what your average remaster brings to the table. They transformed a Wii game into something that could pass as a Switch title (even if it doesn't look like one of the best Switch titles). Most remasters I can think of don't go nearly as far. They upgrade the resolution, upgrade some textures... and then they split between the ones that upgrade the framerate, the ones that rearrange the soundtrack and the ones that polish some gameplay aspects.

Honestly, I can't understand why they sound disappointed. I understand the resolution issue, that's certainly concearning. But everything else? C'mon, it's excellent for a remaster!

It's the result of the uncertainty whether the game is a remaster or a remake. We'll get quite a few people who call it a remaster, but actually judge it like a remake. Digital Foundry is a great example of that.

You are consistent. You call it a remaster and judge it by those standards.

Well, Digital Foundry being experts should judge things by their own standards. If they call this a remaster from the beginning of the video, they should judge it as that. And no matter how you look at it, from a remaster perspective this game is far above the average remaster, even if it's not perfect.

Since the first time I started discussing this matter I said that XC: DE was one of the biggest remasters I've ever seen. So... yeah, I guess I'm consistent xD



Vodacixi on 29 May 2020
SKMBlake said:
Vodacixi said:

I find Digital Foundry's video quite too harsh on the game. I mean, everything they point out is true. However, I don't know what they expected from something they themselves call a remaster. They improved/changed textures, they redid the faces of characters, they have implemented new more realistic shadows and lightning, they have added water reflections, AA and Motion Blur, grass is no longer a JPEG texture, they increased the resolution (even if they could have done a better job on that front), they remastered the soundtrack, they added 12-20 hours of story, they completely redid the menus and UI... and yet, throught the video they keep manifesting slight disappointment over every area they talk about.

Excuse me... what are you talking about? This game did A TON more than what your average remaster brings to the table. They transformed a Wii game into something that could pass as a Switch title (even if it doesn't look like one of the best Switch titles). Most remasters I can think of don't go nearly as far. They upgrade the resolution, upgrade some textures... and then they split between the ones that upgrade the framerate, the ones that rearrange the soundtrack and the ones that polish some gameplay aspects.

Honestly, I can't understand why they sound disappointed. I understand the resolution issue, that's certainly concearning. But everything else? C'mon, it's excellent for a remaster!

Indeed. That's the problem with the expectations for a remaster vs expectations for a remake.

When you make a remaster, people expect a greater resolution and framerate + some improved textures.

Wehn you make a remake, people expect to play pretty much the same game with some nice changes.

And Xenoblade DE is basically a prequel to Xenoblade 2, based on XC2 with most elements took from the original Wii game. So the game runs pretty much the same as XC2.

But comparing it as other "remasters", it can seem disapointing.

I mean... unless you compare this to some games I call remasters, but most of you think are remakes like Crash N'Sane Trilogy or Shadow of the Colossus (and I don't want to initiate a debate, is just an example) I think it would be hard to find a more solid remaster than Xenoblade Definitive Edition. The recent Saints Row: The Third and Wind Waker HD are the only ones that might play on the same league...



hunter_alien on 29 May 2020
Pemalite said:
hunter_alien said:

Fair enough. But let's face it, it doesn't even come close to hitting those numbers. For me, 600p in handheld-mode is pretty much the low-limit. Mario + Rabbits ran at that resolution and it was pretty soft. Anything under that and it starts showing. 

Links Awakening drops to 576p, but the art style hides that extremely well. Again, depends on the game and such and how much post-processing is done, not all games are the same.

Damn, that's pretty low. But you are right, art style matters a lot. I didn't have the chance to try Link's Awakening yet, but that's a game I will probably play eventually. Really curious how it will look in handheld mode, as that is the primary way I play on my Switch.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Around the Network
JRPGfan on 29 May 2020

On PC it runs at 60fps (there was a patch for that), and with HD textures.

Looks something like this (pic of early hd textures, thread):


Honestly the emulation on dolphine holds up very well compaired to the Xenoblade DE (switch) version.
The pop-in isnt as drastic too, in those videos of the Xenoblade DE, it was really hard not to get annouyed by foliage pop-ins.



hinch on 29 May 2020

^ That actually looks nice. I thought that was the remastered version running on the Switch emulator! Those mods are getting pretty awesome.

368p is pretty shameful with those visuals, and at sub 30fps at that.



hinch on 29 May 2020
pikashoe said:
Everyone thought it looked great until they were told a number.

Who's everyone?

I thought XB2 was unplayable as well in handheld mode due to the abysmal resolution and this is old remastered game with even worse visuals.



Hynad on 29 May 2020

The game does have a soft look to it because of the less than ideal resolution. I play on a 43” 4K TV which has a good built-in upscaler. Yet, the blurriness is still distracting at times. Hopefully, my eyes will get used to it after a while.

Still the best [official] version of the game, and this less than ideal resolution isn’t a deal-breaker.



hinch on 29 May 2020

Low balling, really? Reaching to as low as 368p is abysmal and criticism is warranted. Dynamically running 504p-360p isn't great lets be honest, especially coming from a remaster. XB2 also ran at similar resolution and guess what.. that also looks bad when running on handheld mode - and that was a new game not a remaster.