Any opinions on Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap: The HD Remaster?
-
-
-
You certainly do not need to decide FPS early on in a console game's lifecycle. Plenty of games, the majority maybe even, support different frame rates on last gen compared to current gen e.g. mgsv and more recently we see PS4 pro and Xbox one X playing the same game at a higher frame rate than on the standard version of those consoles. Long ago developers would time game loops with the vertical blank but that was ages ago. Some Devs probably still do this e.g. From Software and we get to see the problems this causes but modern game development appears to have moved on from this. In fact most recent PS4 games let you choose resolution or frame rate when running on a pro; how could they do that if you had to make the decision early on in the development cycle? In fact they don't have to make the decision at all these days, with games letting you choose between a capped frame rate or variable e.g. killzone shadowfallComment
-
Technically no, but pragmatically yes.Originally posted by Brad View Post
You're talking about how things like physics have been decoupled from performance/framerate and that's true; Nintendo could, for example, patch Mario Odyssey to cap at 30fps tomorrow and the game would work fine (just at 30fps). With more powerful hardware, you could take most 3D games and increase their framerate (though not all - an interesting recent example was Shadow of the Colossus, where the PS2 version couldn't be scaled up to 60fps on PS3 because it had optimisations that capped the animations at a static 30).
What I mean is that in practical terms, if you're aiming for 60, it has to be something you decide from day 1 (if on console; on PC it's not as big a deal). You have to set a performance bar and maintain it for the duration of development; if you're using your assets efficiently then it's almost impossible to do at the end. Exceptions only tend to occur in situations where games undershoot the hardware; this sometimes happens in first-wave games on a new platform where the console surprises the devs with its performance, or if a game was developed for a prior console then "ported up" to a more powerful one (for instance, the PS1 Soul Reaver runs at 30 but the Dreamcast version runs at a rock-solid 60).
So certainly in a game like Breath of the Wild, which is capped at 30, you could go in, scrub out the "30" and change it to "60", but the game would only run at 60 in scenarios where the game wasn't taxing the hardware. So for instance, it would probably hit 60 if you stand in a small interior location or stare at wall, but the moment you're in a complex scene, it'd jump around all over the place, dipping between the 30s and 40s, and generally speaking a consistent framerate is usually better than a higher one (like a solid 30 is better than a game which jumps from 30-50 all the time).
Obviously this is different back in the 16-bit and PS1/Saturn days, where games had to run at 60/30 etc. and couldn't change, or their physics would tend to screw up/other problems would occur, because the developers just assumed that every frame of movement in the game was of a consistent duration.
These days developers run physics engines in real-time at a different cadence to framerate; in fact they do this for most things. Very few things are frame-rate dependent (sometimes post-processed VFX can be dependent on FPS because it can look worse otherwise).
This is a particularly interesting area of study for racing games or MMOs, where the "minimal performance scenario" and "maximal performance scenario" have such a large delta. Like in Super Mario World, the game has a pretty consistent level of putting stuff onscreen, and its busiest moment isn't too much more taxing than its quietest. A racing game like Gran Turismo on the other hand can have the player staring at a wall on their own, or in third-person staring down a Tokyo street with 12 cars onscreen.
So yeah; the technical constraint of limiting FPS is pretty much gone, but there are still constraints.Comment
-
Ok dude, you're going to have to explain why this decision has to be made early on for consoles but not for PC. I've already explained, and given multiple examples, why it is entirely unnecessary. Yes, you can have a target frame rate in mind but if you can't hit it then you just get the same game but without as smooth frame rate and you can either optimise or accept half the frame rate, or unlock it. Sotc is a specific example of a game written ages ago that maxed out the console it was on and failed to achieve the desired frame rate anyway, yet still launched and still worked.Comment
-
I picked it up recently while it was cheap and it's very nice. It looks lovely and it plays decent enough, considering it's pretty ancient. The gameplay hasn't really been changed, but overall as a remake it's good. I hesitated at full price, but it's definitely worth picking up at half price.Originally posted by Protocol Penguin View PostComment
-
For PC, it is generally accepted that users will have a wide variety of hardware profiles, meaning you just condone the idea that framerates are more variable. Also PCs are multi-tasking devices (much more than consoles) meaning that aiming for a solid framerate just isn't as viable.Originally posted by Brad View Post
It's more straightforward to aim for a robust FPS on Switch because there is only one hardware profile, and reasonably speaking, if it works on one Switch, it'll work on them all. Your PC and my PC might differ enormously. Even though Steam's survey and similar resources get you a ballpark, even the "acceptable" mid-level is wide and constantly shifting. Plus, you can safely assume that bar will rise over the 2-3 years you develop a game, whereas if you started developing a game on Switch today, it'll probably be the same performance when you release it.
You can't just "optimise" for 60fps. I mean, you can, but it could be hugely expensive. A good art department works to a specification, where they understand the maximum extent of what they can use in order to make a game look good - and they will use this to its absolute maximum, often going slightly over and having to reign it in at some points.Yes, you can have a target frame rate in mind but if you can't hit it then you just get the same game but without as smooth frame rate and you can either optimise or accept half the frame rate, or unlock it.
If the art department on, say, an Assassin's Creed game has been doing this for 2 years and then someone says "right, now the game's going to be 60fps on the same hardware that we were going to ship 30fps", you "optimise" - but that kind of optimisation could require that you have to remake large parts of the game's visual assets, and those are some of the most expensive parts of production. Every aspect of the game would need to be downsized to get it to render twice as quickly.
That could be phenomenally expensive, perhaps even a decent percentage of the total budget for the game. However, if you started the project with 60fps in mind, you wouldn't make that mistake. Everyone on the project would have the correct budgets for 60fps and work to those.
This is what is meant when industry people refer to Nintendo's "discipline" when targeting 60fps in titles like Odyssey and Splatoon 2. It honestly does take an amount of creative discipline and persistence of vision to really go for 60, especially when there are many players out there who don't appreciate it. They set out to do it from day 1, and it shows.Comment
-
if your a fan of the original its well worth the pick up i got it the other day and i love it. As others have said the game play hasn't been changed so its pretty much an 8bit game in a shinny new coat but if you like a bit of platforming and exploration with the odd boss its well worth a pick up.Originally posted by Protocol Penguin View PostComment
-
Can you buy Zero Gunner 2 in the UK for the Switch?
Searched the UK Nintendo site and it doesn't come up.
Any other kid-friendly games that I can play?
I don't want to play ridiculously easy games, but if my son can help, like in SMO and SMG2, that'd be great!Comment
-
-
Are you saying DKC is a ridiculously easy game or one he should play because it's not a ridiculously easy game?Comment
-
The second bit.Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
It's easier than DKC 1 & 2, but a nightmare if you want to 100% it.
Saying that they've added an easy mode to this one. They already have Kirby though, so it might be best to finish the games they have rather than dipping in to anything else. Mario on its own should be enough for most people.
[MENTION=10111]QualityChimp[/MENTION] How about some Gentleman's indie stuff? Stardew Valley? Golf Story?Comment
-
My friend loves Stardew Valley, so I imight look into that, but as you say, going to focus on the games we have already.Comment
-
<insert handbraketurn-backlog.gif>Comment
-
Comment