Ah okay, should have figured something like that would have already been attempted. Have to look for a video of that if there is one to see how it looks. Def not too impressed with what we're seeing here although Sunshine looks pretty good.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Foundry Mario 3D All Stars review/analysis
- Thread starter Nabbit
- Start date
I just watched the video too and I am not really impressed with this collection. €60 or €50 is very steep. Especially when there are home brew ports which are better than this collection.
Well it's running Mario Galaxy in the same collection from 2 generations ahead at 1080p/60fps, so...
I'd be all over this collection purely for Sunshine if it was 60 fps, but I'll stick with my GameCube version that leverages Swiss and an HDMI out to run in proper 16:9 widescreen with flipped l/r controls on the c-stick with better controls. That cuts the improvements in half, basically, as nice as seeing it in higher resolution is.
UI and text jaggies aside, that looks really solid. So there we go, too bad Nintendo wasn't able to get that performance with the enhancements.
The thing is though, I'm 99% sure it was definitely a conscious decision. If they could get Sunshine and Galaxy performing in widescreen, there's no way they couldn't do the same to 64.
I can't imagine it was incompetence, I just don't see how that's even possible.
Yeah, 64 and Sunshine are what I was most hyped about because I never completed the originals. Such a shame.
I guess it comes down to why they felt it didn't need as much of a bump. Maybe as he mentions in the video that all the code would have needed to be reworked and would have proven to be simply too much work.
As it is though I'll be passing on this since I still have them all readily playable on their native consoles. Would have been nice to feel a desire to buy this for the Switch though as it's the one I play the most.
Great video, as always. Hopefully a couple of these minor issues get corrected in a patch, but they certainly aren't deal-breakers for me. It does appear that they put in enough work to earn the price tag, but it's hard not to compare it to community efforts which admittedly have had much more time to mature
64 amongst the trilogy (if you can even call it that, lol) lends itself best to replayability, imo, so it's really too bad they skimped out on its visual potential so blatantly.
I've said in a few of these threads that Nintendo's goal is always reliability and polish first over pushing graphical limits. If widescreen in SM64 causes the camera to clip through some walls (for example), we might accept it as a trade off on an emulator, but there is no way Nintendo would ship it. Like you said, there is no way they didn't evaluate widescreen hacks for SM64 internally, but it must have caused a problem somewhere else that would have been too costly to correct within budget
Great review, though I was surprised John said he'd rather play 64 on original hardware. The frame rate is locked on Switch. Certainly wasn't on N64!
One of the most telling clips to me was a seeing Mario swing Bowser around and seeing how much longer that whole sequence was on N64. That kind of slow down makes me never want to revisit SM64 on an N64 ever again. I also really appreciate the sprite edges smoothed out. The bob-ombs look great now. But seeing that low Polygon Mario model, I hope it's rare. That is distracting.
I am just going to throw my two cents here and say that widescreen on Mario 64 is not without its caveats.
First issue is that certain things are only made for 4:3. This includes the file select screen and the canon HUD. If you watch any videos of the PC port you'll notice that the edges kind of glitch and are not smooth when you leave the file select screen and go to the Peach cut scene.
Somebody also mentioned the draw distance. The problem with increasing the draw distance is that the enemies' AI will still initiate even though Mario might be on the other side of the level. For example the chomp chomp in the first level will continue barking and throwing himself in Mario's direction.
As proof that I'm not talking out of my ass, here's one of the developer's of the PC port talking about widescreen in Mario 64 on Discord:
First issue is that certain things are only made for 4:3. This includes the file select screen and the canon HUD. If you watch any videos of the PC port you'll notice that the edges kind of glitch and are not smooth when you leave the file select screen and go to the Peach cut scene.
Somebody also mentioned the draw distance. The problem with increasing the draw distance is that the enemies' AI will still initiate even though Mario might be on the other side of the level. For example the chomp chomp in the first level will continue barking and throwing himself in Mario's direction.
As proof that I'm not talking out of my ass, here's one of the developer's of the PC port talking about widescreen in Mario 64 on Discord:
They will always choose to preserve the originals, frame rate, etc. al. Like, even the Legend of Zelda remasters are still kept at the same frame rates even when we all wanted a higher frame rate.
Frame pacing issues vs occasional slow down seems like a toss up.
Yep, agreed re: how the N64 handled its frame rate.
The frame pacing issues are minor on Switch. The N64 would slow down to a single-digit frame-rate at times.
It's absolutely a YMMV though. Two different issues that bother people to different amounts. Some people don't notice framerate pacing issues at all, some people find them incredibly jarring. John has long been a vocal fan of *consistent* performance. Neither version in question offers that.
Considering they bumped Sunshine up to 16:9 it makes sense that at some level, Nintendo likely weighed the option of implementing the same feature in 64. I know a lot of people like to imply the lazy dev rhetoric (even if they don't say it out loud), but it never made sense to me once you stop and actually think about what's happening with this collection and how Nintendo generally treats their legacy software.
In the end it mostly becomes a discussion of whether consequences in implementation are worth the benefits, or whether injecting a bunch of ROM alterations would be worth the meticulous effort (Nintendo are really good at preserving their source code but that doesn't necessarily imply they're not a mess to wade through, which dataminers cited as a reason for why Galaxy only runs part of its source), and while some people insist on a source port, the benefit of emulation is now they've opened up the possibility of future ports as an added benefit while having a game that, at minimum runs as good as the original.
I'll give it a week!
I'd also be inclined to believe this. Is there any evidence of this in the widescreen PC port? Even a small snag that didn't exist in the original game?
The video is ostensibly a technical review of the ports/remasters/whatever they are. But the end result was to make me hugely nostalgic for Sunshine and immediately go out and buy Nintendo vouchers. The other voucher will be either Pikmin, or the Zelda Warriors thingy
This looks good enough to me. I want to experience these amazing games once again. All of the negatives are pretty minor, and I'm totally fine with 4:3 in 64. I can always play the widescreen PC version if I want that route.
Same for me. I haven't played 64 or Sunshine since they originally released and never played Galaxy. Excited to revisit 64 and play Galaxy for the first time. I think I will be happy with this collection.
OP
OP
Sounds like they're pretty minor, and for 64, still better than the original. Nowhere near the LA or BOTW performance issues.
OP
OP
Is there different muffled audio from the slight audio delay part they talk about (with the jumping)?
Quick question for those disappointed:
Is any of your disappointment targeted at the visual fidelity of Sunshine and/or Galaxy? If so, why?
IMO, those games haven't aged a day. Bumping them up to widescreen and clearing some textures up was a great endgame for them within this collection, imo. I didn't expect HD remakes of those 2. Such a task would've been considerably more ambitious and, imo, unnecessary than the work put into the Crash and Spyro remakes.
---
Even 64, aside from clearing textures up and making it widescreen, wouldn't benefit from "improved" visuals. The mod for the PC port that makes the character models more closely resemble the concept art and "updates" the textures looks weird to me, imo. Obviously it's a fan effort thus wouldn't match Nintendo's hypothetical quality, but there's something to be said about preserving the original visuals and keeping the gameplay completely authentic to the original release.
Is any of your disappointment targeted at the visual fidelity of Sunshine and/or Galaxy? If so, why?
IMO, those games haven't aged a day. Bumping them up to widescreen and clearing some textures up was a great endgame for them within this collection, imo. I didn't expect HD remakes of those 2. Such a task would've been considerably more ambitious and, imo, unnecessary than the work put into the Crash and Spyro remakes.
---
Even 64, aside from clearing textures up and making it widescreen, wouldn't benefit from "improved" visuals. The mod for the PC port that makes the character models more closely resemble the concept art and "updates" the textures looks weird to me, imo. Obviously it's a fan effort thus wouldn't match Nintendo's hypothetical quality, but there's something to be said about preserving the original visuals and keeping the gameplay completely authentic to the original release.
The only thing that bugs me is 64 isn't widescreen. Come on. Its not that hard. Other than that this collection looks decent enough. I had $20 credit from Best Buy so I snagged this for $40.
OP
OP
Great points! Thanks for sharing, i didn't know any of this.
True and agreed. I personally don't mind inconsistent frame-pacing (within reason), and from the DF video it seems to be solid most of the time. Video gave me flashbacks to how most games ran on N64 though (and I still use my N64 regularly through RGB into a Framemeister). I feel like there's a huge gulf in these issues, even if it is ultimately a preference thing. For me it's a slight "feel" or occasional judder versus the game regularly grinding to a halt under its own weight!
I feel the same way, I just wish that I could easily access it in this collection alongside the other 2 games. It'll be weird jumping between 4:3 and widescreen; same applied to 30fps and 60fps.
Sunshine is the one I want to replay most in this collection so I'm glad to see it get such an upgrade. Shame about the frame pacing issues though, Spyro HD collection had that issue too and it was quite distracting, but it doesn't look as bad as that at least.
I just wanted something similar to the Resident Evil HD games. 16:9 or 4:3 as an option and an optional 30 or 60fps, especially for Sunshine. I didn't expect a remake at all.
Having some hands on time with these this morning, I agree with their verdict that these are fine, acceptable 'remasters.' They are undoubtedly improved from the original releases, and Sunshine and Galaxy in particular look great (Galaxy is legit one of the prettiest games made). However, Nintendo could have done a lot more, and that's where the disappointment sneaks in. Still some of the best games ever made (and Sunshine).
As much as I'd like full remakes of these games, it was never feasible (or even worth it) to remake Sunshine or Galaxy, imo. Those 2 hold up visually incredibly well today. 64 was the only one that needed an update, if we're gonna pick one.
That being said, All-Stars itself has its share of problems too! Between the weird art choices in Mario 3 and the brick glitch in SMB1/Lost Levels, it's an odd collection in and of itself. I think I prefer getting definitive versions of the original 3 games with minimal changes to getting remakes that potentially bring in new problems.
OP
OP
FWIW the slow down seems to be pretty infrequent. I've barely seen any mention of it in reviews.
Edit: sorry, I meant frame pacing.
Not sure, but that's what John used to demonstrate what he meant so if there are other instances, we don't know yet. It's one of those things that probably wouldn't have annoyed had I not known about it, but now that I do, it'll probably take some time before I forget about it when playing.
lol well there goes all my hype. After seeing M64 running at 60fps on the Vita this one hurts.
Might just play Galaxy when they release the standalone version
Might just play Galaxy when they release the standalone version
Looks like this person below was right about Sunshine's frame rate drops after all.
Nevertheless, this entire collection just reassured me that it's not worth spending $60 on.
Nevertheless, this entire collection just reassured me that it's not worth spending $60 on.
Last edited:
Yeah this is a pretty poor showing. Very barebones effort by Nintendo here, and certainly not worth its full asking price in my eyes. If all 3 games were the definitive versions? Then absolutely. But each game is a bit of a mixed bag, and all 3 games are far better through modern emulation on PC.
Yeah, I'll stick to emulators for these games. I'm jealous of those fmvs though. The originals look so bad.
Frame-pacing is still a hard thing for most reviewers to understand and quantify. It's more of a "feel" thing for some people than a hard, obvious frame rate drop. It isn't talked about much since it's about consistency of frames rather than actually "losing" them or missing a target which can be much more overt. Regardless, the DF review definitely mentioned that the frame-pacing issues here are minor.