gaming Opinion on Zelda: Breath of the wild?

[Guest]

I see some areas where the graphics are low (the trees, being the main issue) but overall the graphics in this game are gorgeous. The scenery is gorgeous, the buildings are gorgeous. I don't really see what people are complaining about... But I hardly ever do. People get stuck on these things like FPS, which is meaningless to me. lol

FPS is kind of important in an open world game and the reason why is because big games make the performance drop at intensive parts of the game. When the FPS is already low it'll drop to REALLY low levels where it become choppy and virtually unplayable. Higher FPS is better because when it drops, it still stays within a playable range. If a game drops to like 20FPS then button presses don't quite register very well.

 

Also the reason why people are upset about the graphics and do not really think they are "gorgeous" for the time they are coming out is because you have to consider what the game is going to look like on the average TV. MOST people have at LEAST a 1080p TV at this point and by next year a lot more people are upgrading to 4K. So consider what this game will look like on said TVs. To demostrate I have prepared some screenshots that will show you a direct comparison to how the game will ACTUALLY look on your average TV compared to another style of open world game:

 

The first image is of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. this is what the game will look like when played on a 1080p screen. Grainy, and not that impressive. When you look at the second screenshot which is of Dragon Age: Inquisition on the PS4, there is literally no argument that Dragon Age's graphics are far more impressive, far more details and far more intensive and yet... Dragon Age was made 2 years earlier than this game...

 

Nintendo keeps charging $60 for their games and no doubt they will charge $60 for this one too, but it's starting to get people to question "why am I giving you $60 for less?" Even the environment in this game feels rather empty and undetailed. But now Nintendo wants the same $60 for a game that doesn't even hold up against games 2 years older than it. It feels like they are just giving us less and expecting more money for it. Windwaker HD looked FANTASTIC in 1080p so there is no excuse not to make this game in at LEAST 1080p especially since it'll be available on new hardware.

 

Hell I would argue Windwaker HD looked nicer than this game: http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/8/82063/2419691-8407961539_87d1d4a869_o.jpg

 

It's definitely a reason to be disappointed that this super hyped Zelda game graphic wise... is nothing impressive, and it's definitely not treading on any new grounds for Nintendo. Feels like more of the same and low res crap.

[Limeblossom 482]

@@Key Sharkz: Have the first Wind Waker version and it's still looking good .

[honk friend 1,978]

link is super cute in this game and i wanna piece of that

[Celli 4,338]

@@Key Sharkz,I think the game looks fantastic, and also, I heavily disagree, and I find the environments to be incredibly detailed, and anything but empty. Also, sure, Wind Waker HD looks good, but the only reason it looks better, at least compared to the Gamecube version, is because it uses a lot of bloom, and shaders. The textures are still low res, and it's honestly kind of glaring in my opinion, whereas the new game has higher res textures, and the environment looks richer and prettier.

Another thing, you're complaining that they're charging $60 for the game, when for one, they had to leave certain things out of the game for the demo, as they'd be spoilery, and the world is supposedly 12 times bigger than Twilight Princess. Also, the amount of content in the game will have to justify the price, too, and the game isn't out yet, so I don't think it's fair to assume the game is not worth $60. Also, every major company charges $60 for all their games, so Nintendo isn't the only offender. Furthermore, those publishers charge $60 for games devoid of content, are also broken upon release, and some of them charge extra for content that should be available at launch. I have never seen Nintendo charge $60 for a game like Zelda, and then say, "Oh, you want this extra dungeon? Then cough up another $30 for us!"

[Guest]

@@Key Sharkz,I think the game looks fantastic, and also, I heavily disagree, and I find the environments to be incredibly detailed, and anything but empty. Also, sure, Wind Waker HD looks good, but the only reason it looks better, at least compared to the Gamecube version, is because it uses a lot of bloom, and shaders. The textures are still low res, and it's honestly kind of glaring in my opinion, whereas the new game has higher res textures, and the environment looks richer and prettier.

Another thing, you're complaining that they're charging $60 for the game, when for one, they had to leave certain things out of the game for the demo, as they'd be spoilery, and the world is supposedly 12 times bigger than Twilight Princess. Also, the amount of content in the game will have to justify the price, too, and the game isn't out yet, so I don't think it's fair to assume the game is not worth $60. Also, every major company charges $60 for all their games, so Nintendo isn't the only offender. Furthermore, those publishers charge $60 for games devoid of content, are also broken upon release, and some of them charge extra for content that should be available at launch. I have never seen Nintendo charge $60 for a game like Zelda, and then say, "Oh, you want this extra dungeon? Then cough up another $30 for us!"

 

The problem is that Nintendo charges $60 for games that are significantly lower res, significantly less intensive and therefore far cheaper to make (especially when they make it all in house) and then stick a $60 price tag on it which they keep on it for close to 4 years sometimes. It's totally crap.

 

Being 720p in 2017 is a huge problem considering they are predicting 50% of homes will have 4K by 2020. With 720p TVs being phased out a vast majority of people either own a 1080p display or can get one for next to nothing. Virtually everyone is going to be viewing the game on a 1080p display. This effectively means virtually everyone is going to see the difference. This gives those already on 4K a very crap looking picture quality. It literally means the better your TV, the worse this game will look. So in a world where they are barely meeting standards that have been in place since 2010 and will be starting next generation even further behind than they are now, it's troubling. It's more troubling that we are expected to pay $60 for a game that looks like this.

 

As the game stands in its current state, it's empty, it's graphics aren't really impressive and even with Windwaker using bloom effects, etc. to make up for its lack of textures, the end result looks far better.

 

720p in 2017 is simply inexcusable especially since they are breaking out new hardware to run this game when the Wii U could do 1080p. Mario Kart 8 even feels like it has more going on than this game in terms of appearance.

 

Also Twilight Princess wasn't that big... 12 times bigger than it doesn't really mean much.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Guest

[Celli 4,338]

@@Key Sharkz, I suppose you make a point. But what do you mean by empty? The world? Because it really isn't empty. Or do you mean the visuals look empty? 

[Guest]

@@Key Sharkz, I suppose you make a point. But what do you mean by empty? The world? Because it really isn't empty. Or do you mean the visuals look empty? 

Both. The world just doesn't really seem that vibrant. Look at other Zelda games. The world "pops" a bit more. This one... The world just looks really plain and empty. The color palette seems bland for a Zelda game and with a lack of building, structures, etc. the world so far looks like a big open field. They have to fill the world up with stuff.

 

On top of this, even the skybox looks rather... Undetailed. There's really nothing exciting or special going on. Take a look at how some of the other games handled areas that were mostly one color like Majora's Mask. They took advantage of lighting to make the area look more than just brown or green. Color wise things pop a bit more in these situations. This new game just all feels really bland...

[Celli 4,338]

@@Key Sharkz,Well, as I said, they had to cut out some important story-related stuff for the demo, so it's entirely possible that the world has more in it, besides the fact that they only showed a small portion of the map.

And as for the rest of the game, as I've said before, Nintendo really messed up with the Wii U, and is quite underpowered. So the fact that it runs in 720p and some of the visuals are bland, isn't really the fault of the game, but the fact that the Wii U is really weak as a console.

But there are signs that the NX version will be better. Apparently the game looks visually different on the NX

https://mynintendonews.com/2016/06/16/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-features-different-visuals-on-nx-but-same-experience/

[Guest]

 

 

@Key Sharkz,Well, as I said, they had to cut out some important story-related stuff for the demo, so it's entirely possible that the world has more in it, besides the fact that they only showed a small portion of the map.

 

Demos are generally intended to generate interest for the game, so it makes no sense to not show something more eye catching in the demo.

 

 

 

And as for the rest of the game, as I've said before, Nintendo really messed up with the Wii U, and is quite underpowered. So the fact that it runs in 720p and some of the visuals are bland, isn't really the fault of the game, but the fact that the Wii U is really weak as a console. But there are signs that the NX version will be better. Apparently the game looks visually different on the NX https://mynintendone...ame-experience/

 

I'm really hoping this is the case considering we've gotten conflicting reports on this. I can forgive it on the Wii U because the Wii U sucks (even though it could probably handle 1080p for a game not really that visually intensive) but NX has no excuse. 

[Celli 4,338]

 

 

Demos are generally intended to generate interest for the game, so it makes no sense to not show something more eye catching in the demo.

They outright said in the E3 gameplay showcase they cut a few towns out and some story-specific things.

 

 

I'm really hoping this is the case considering we've gotten conflicting reports on this. I can forgive it on the Wii U because the Wii U sucks (even though it could probably handle 1080p for a game not really that visually intensive) but NX has no excuse.

The game may not be that visually intensive, but the world is huge and might have bogged down the performance. Not saying they couldn't have tried, but just that it could be a reason why.

Guess we'll have to wait for the game to come out first.

[Megas 27,742]

 

 

Demos are generally intended to generate interest for the game, so it makes no sense to not show something more eye catching in the demo.

 

 

I disagree, judging from the positive response I've seen from virtually every gaming site as well as the people who've played the demo, it seems to have worked out for the game