A more in-depth analysis of the graphical changes.  This looks to be the first Xenoblade game to render at 1080p instead of a dynamic and usually well-below 720, with some sort of anti-aliasing added that the original release lacked.  Character models, textures, and LOD on distant objects are also improved, though it remains to be seen just how much.  It's not that much in the grand scheme of things, but it's more than pretty much all other Wii U to Switch ports, which usually settle for just increasing the resolution and sometimes making the framerate more stable without touching the base assets.

Well...

Lyn's looks better, but that's probably because the newer art is shown in a much better light. But if Elma is any indication, everything looks better on the Switch except the faces. Elma's Switch face looks flat/cartoonish by comparison to the Wii U version. I think they lowered the texture details significantly or this is just standing art. The Switch version might just be using stand-in art for the faces, though--just as a bit of evidence for this, there's an art bug with the eyes - they're a little fish-like and the eye texture is overlapping her hair - while the hair in the Wii U version correctly goes in front of the eyes.

You have to factor in that Nintendo can only get people to buy their consoles with Nintendo games, while Playstation can just coast on third party games like CoD and GTA for much of its popularity. So Nintendo needs to use ports of their old games to deliver sales more than Playstation, because third party developers can't deliver anything big on Nintendo consoles given that every big game they make skips Nintendo consoles. For example next year Playstation will get a new Monster Hunter game at the same time Nintendo needs to make do with a port of an old Xenoblade game, Playstation has much better cards to play than Nintendo given their huge third party support.

Ie, why would Sony need to follow a Nintendo like porting strategy at all when Nintendo don't get any big third party games and thus have to pad out their releases with ports instead? Sony could just coast on third party support until they drop a new God of War or a new Spiderman with minimal issues.

So let me get this straight, you are sticking up for Sony remaking games that people can already pop into their PS5s and play? There is no excuse for the TLOU remake. The original version of the game couldn't be played on PS4, so a remaster was understandable. The Remake though? No such excuse. Dropping 3 versions of the same game in 9 years is indefensible. I can play Horizon Zero Dawn, on my PS5, at 60fps right now. No need for a remaster. How many PS3 games are Sony sitting on that CANNOT be played on PS5. I can't pop my XCX disc into my Switch. My HZD works just fine. Hell, they can't even drop a patch for Bloodborne when a fan hacked the game to run at 60fps on PS4 Pro.

I think The Last of Us Part 1 would have gone over better if it was Naughty Dog getting used to the new hardware to really knock it out of the park with their first new game the way the 2014 version was for the development of Uncharted 4 on the PS4.  Instead, it just led to another remaster of the 2nd game with no new game from the studio so much as announced 4 years into the generation.  That's ultimately the difference between the rerelease situation on Sony and Nintendo platforms.  Nintendo fans have every reason to believe Nintendo's rereleases are there to give development teams time to finish and perfect new games, while many Playstation fans feel their rereleases are taking the place of new games and are being worked on instead of new games.

Yes, also the fact that given that PS5 gets every major third party game at release, they have no need to pad out their releases with ports and remasters. The fact that most games of any major budget will skip Switch just means that Nintendo is fully dependant on ports and remasters to have regular releases coming to Switch.

Only here can we get such great news about this port and people have to sully it with TLOU. Get that shit out of this thread. Don't put mold on this pizza.

I understand that feeling, but it's a bit misguided. Sony ports are primarily handled by newer developers as a way to train them in developing future games. The reason Sony is releasing fewer games is that they pride themselves on delivering polished and bug-free experiences. Even if they aren't always the most creative or grand in scope within the industry, Sony games generally feature tight gameplay, responsive controls, and high production value. In that sense they are exactly like Nintendo, and they certainly want to maintain that standard.

Those remakes/remasters Sony do are not for me, as I already said, mostly because I already played those games by then, but even if not, I usually stick to the original version of games, even as I've been getting Nintendo remasters more often nowdays, I'm mostly unbothered by them.

Again, if TLoU releasing the same game 3 times in 9 years is indefensible, what about Xenoblade Chronicles being released 3 times in 10 years as well? This is exactly the point, it's the same situation, the same amount of games, basically the same time period, but for Sony alone it is indefensible...? TLoU Remake on PS5 is vastly more high quality and improved over the original PS3 game than Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition in the Switch is compared to the original Wii Version.

And I'll end up getting XCX DE, like I did XC DE, mostly because I've never played them on Wii or Wii U and I would preffer playing them on the Pro Controller for the Switch rather than any other controller for the Wii or Wii U. I have become kinda spoiled since the DualShock 4, the Wii U Pro Controller feels pretty strange now, the Switch and PS5 controllers are by far my preffered way to play games nowdays.

I also don't feel like getting Horizon Zero Dawn or The Last of Us remasters, but it I did I would still only pay $10 for them as a owner of the original version, rather than having to buy the whole game again.

Sony is giving options, cheaper upgrade paths and BC, doesn't sound bad at all, but it generates hate, which can be anyone take on it, but then again it's mostly only them getting that kind of hate.

Seems like a weird flex tbh lol, that definitely doesn't come off how you meant it to come off.

First off, "third party developers can't deliver anything big on Nintendo consoles given that every big game they make skips Nintendo consoles" doesn't even make any sense. In the same sentence you say third parties CAN'T deliver big games on Nintendo because they CHOOSE not to. Uh yeah those are two different things lol. The second part of that sentence is correct, which makes the first part incorrect. Third parties mostly choose to go with the highest end graphics for their AAA games, which is the reason they choose to make those games for XB/PS/PC rather than Nintendo. They of course are perfectly capable of making those games on Nintendo, but they choose the highest-end graphics over getting access to Nintendo's user base.

More generally to point out the weirdness of your comment, Sony in fact DOES pad out their library by releasing the same one-to-two-gen-old games over and over every gen, despite the fact that they can already be played on the system. Nintendo does NOT do that. What Nintendo did this gen was to bring games from the WiiU that hardly anyone played to a 10x larger audience. If the WiiU hadn't been a complete failure it's safe to say Nintendo wouldn't have bothered releasing all those games on Switch. Also you are comparing PS5 at 4 years to Switch at 8 years. Yes Nintendo is bringing out a lot of old ports NOW to pad out their library in these very late stages of the lifecycle when big AAA new releases are just about all done on the Switch with next gen about to start. The fact that Sony needs to do this while PS5 is at the height of its market cycle is not good.

Nintendo has, happily for gamers, brought lots of great but currently unavailable and hardly ever played games to the Switch, and everyone is happy about that. That's in addition to Switch's incredible first party AAA exclusive library, their incredible indie library, and their mediocre third party AAA library. Sony obviously has a much better AAA third party lineup, because third parties all want their AAA games to have the latest graphics, but it doesn't have much in the way of new 1st party games as shown by BraLoD's list (but I mean nobody would expect Sony to be in the same league as Nintendo when it comes to being a development powerhouse, Nintendo is well known as the best and most prolific developer in the world). And to try to pad out their library Sony is re-releasing old games that are already available to play on the system.

Granted I don't have PS5, but from my casual observing the past few years it seems like it doesn't have as much to play as past Sony systems, and so it becomes clear why they are re-releasing updated versions of games you can already play on the system as if they are new games...to pad out the library. Honestly this is probably mostly due to the fact that most XB/PS/PC AAA games try to go for hyper realistic graphics, and it takes years to make a game like that, so as dev cycles get longer and longer and ever more expensive for companies continuing to stick to that strategy, fewer games come out and it's a huge blow to dev studios when just a single big game doesn't manage to sell many millions of copies. Hence, re-release the same games over and over for much smaller cost which pads out the library and with the hope that people are willing to double and triple dip on games they've already played.

Personally I'll take Nintendo's strategy of tons of great new games while also having most of the best Nintendo games of all time all on a single system but not cash-grabbingly trying to get people to own multiple copies of the same game to play on the same system, over Sony's strategy of re-releasing the same games over and over each gen that they mostly have all already played and trying to get consumers to pay another $60 for a copy of a game that can already be played on the system. Nintendo's strategy is consumer friendly - making the ultimate Nintendo system! Sony's strategy feels like a cash grab to pad out the library due to their games taking too long to make these days. But hey, to each their own haha