Framerate fixed?
Framerate fixed?
Christ... Any review complain about that or 'Zelda'?No, it's constantly stuttering.
Christ... Any review complain about that or 'Zelda'?
Constantly is a stretch unless you're constantly exiting buildings and going back and forth between areas.No, it's constantly stuttering.
I really can't stand the tilt-shift blur though. In any game that uses it.
It's like this gen's vignette.
when I was growing up games would often stutter, take fucking ages to load and would even crash and it was fine and we look back fondly on that. Some framerate issues now and it's embarrassing to watch some reactions.
Yes perhaps with this game they could have resolved the framerate if they delayed it.
But its links awakening on the switch remake, honestly some of you lot don't realize what a classic Nintendo era we are living though right now.
Is anybody else a bit bored of people getting worked up over frame rates and resolutions and judging games buy that instead of "trivial" stuff like gameplay, story, design, interface fluidity, style and challenge? A game needs to run at a suitable resolution and smooth enough to not hinder gameplay and I'm not discounting how important that is but there's more to life as a gamer than to get so uptight over this.
yeah i had an SNES. i remember slowdown. it was a problem on NES as well. can you imagine if we still had slowdown? how annoying that would be? i'll take stutter over that. tho it might be funny if the game just played at 1/2 speed whenever things got too demanding.when I was growing up games would often stutter
chromatic aberration is this generation’s lens flareI really can't stand the tilt-shift blur though. In any game that uses it.
It's like this gen's vignette.
Its a shame that not even Nintendo games can hit native resolution on handheld, 576p or lower is awful.
Switch Pro can't come soon enough
Quite the standard you got there, 360p games...If the game looks good who cares? I seriously doubt the 576p in this will look anywhere near as blurry as Wolfenstein or Doom.
Quite the standard you got there, 360p games...
The game looks beautiful despite its technical shortcomings, but it would look so much better at native resolution of the display
Its a damn shame such beautiful game is hindered by a mediocre presentation. Nintendo should have used a 540p screen, 720p is clearly too much for the switch
Most games are subnative rez on switch, subnative resolution has a huge impact on IQ that a lower rez display is preferableRight because sacrificing screen quality (what lcd maker makes quality sub 720p screens?) because the more ambitious titles on the platform can't meet native resolution makes so much sense smh.
I'll keep enjoying Mario Kart 8 Deluxe at 720p instead of the Wii U gamepad's 480p, thank you very much.
Yups, whereas this and a literal handful of games have used this effect, its not even that bad. Chromatic aberration and forced motion blur are far worse.chromatic aberration is this generation’s lens flare
Is anybody else a bit bored of people getting worked up over frame rates and resolutions and judging games buy that instead of "trivial" stuff like gameplay, story, design, interface fluidity, style and challenge? A game needs to run at a suitable resolution and smooth enough to not hinder gameplay and I'm not discounting how important that is but there's more to life as a gamer than to get so uptight over this.
A brief explanation of what double buffering does. For vertical synchronization, or v-sync for short, the game will attempt to render the frame on the screen without any form of tearing. The downside of this is two fold; One, it will have increased input delay pretty much always, unless you are hitting way over the desired frames. And two, if you don't hit your desired frame rate, things tend to get messy. Now, double buffered vsync is just... Its just the worst. The game will attempt to render at 60fps, but if it can't hit that target it will drop it down to the next suitable field, 30 fps. Even if the game is hitting 59fps, if the frame time goes over 16.67 ms, the game will drop it down to 30fps.
The issue, from what I can see, is that the game is really having a hard time keeping that frame time, and as such you will go from a high frame rate to 30 in seconds. Now, why they picked double buffered is anybody's guess... This just isn't the type of game for it. They can't really do triple buffer that easy on Switch, the memory/bandwidth isn't exactly there.
So anyway, what happens, from what I can see, is every time the game loads in new data, the game can't actually handle this, and will drop frames. At this time, the fps drops to 30fps, because its missing its frame time minimum threshold. Instead, they should just scrap double buffering, because its just utterly dreadful. Either that, or cap the game at 30fps and level out the frame time. The fact that neither of these were done, and instead they picked the solution they went with, gives me no hope in them as full console developers.
Now, the GAME itself is utterly incredible. It always was. But from a technical point of view... Wow, this is really quite a poor showing.
Also, don't give me that "FPS don't matter, enjoy the game" shit. This IS the game. You try playing COD at 60fps and then dropping to 30fps at random times for zero perceivable reason, you will soon go crying.