-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition - Switch vs Wii vs 3DS - The Digital Foundry Tech Review
- Thread starter LukasManak22
- Start date
It must be an engine limitation surely if xc2 performed in the same way on the same engine? It's definitely not a hardware limitation as there are other open world games that look better and have a better resolution. Even dragons dogma is technically more impressive.
I think my biggest grievance is not even the resolution, although it is linked - why is this a full priced game? Dragon's dogma was a great conversion at a better resolution and is a quarter of the price. It really annoyed me with mafia 2 last week and now this too. Had this been a budget release as a downloadable title I would have been more lenient in my views on this.
Don't want to deny the fact that Xenoblade 2 (or even XBDE) are more complex in terms of effects, shadows and such, but if you show me these three screens I'd still find the first more impressive than the other two.
not at all.
Actually, even after XC2 reveal, I felt way less amazement for it than for XCX, and this sensation is the same even after playing it.
This is just an oversight. We have screenshots of other armor sets and they look pretty great. Also to be fair this texture seems to have been changed from the original, it's just not a very high resolution one.This seems better than the original but not actually good from a remaster perspective. A lot of the commentary focuses on the game quality and the improvement which, yeah, Xenoblade is good and any improvement is obviously better than the original. But from a purely visual perspective it isn't really that great, not for a $60 price tag anyway.
The thing that gets me to the most is how they remade the character faces but didn't put the same level of effort towards the rest of their bodies. I think it's pretty jarring. From the video:
Yeah I'm kind of scratching my head with what some are saying here. This is a massive upgrade to the visuals as well as bringing a ton of QOL fixes and extra content. It's a lot more than you can expect from most remasters.
It turns out that masses don't really care. They weren't dissuade by SD content on the Wii and suboptimal resolution this gen. Once you step out of the DF/graphic enthusiast bubble the difference in resolution isn't that important when the underlying game is fun to play.
It's not just a remaster, it also has the extra 20-30 hour epilogue of Future Connected. It definitely deserves its MSRP, because of that.
As expected the portable mode looks really quite rough but docked mode looks relatively good (a shame then that like a fool I left my dock in a hotel just pre-lockdown - and Nintendo don't sell docks separately...) but I am cautiously optimistic about enjoying the jump into this game. I was ho-hum on but enjoyed moments of XC2 and reading through a few of the reviews has me looking to put some time in to this in between breaks working from home.
From the picture posted in this thread of all three games (Xenoblade X, Xenoblade Chronicles DE and XB2) I did definitely think the aesthetic of X is much more attractive to me from an artistic standpoint.
From the picture posted in this thread of all three games (Xenoblade X, Xenoblade Chronicles DE and XB2) I did definitely think the aesthetic of X is much more attractive to me from an artistic standpoint.
I think I remember a reviewer mentioning Future Connected is embargoed, that's why they haven't mentioned much about it. Probably that explains it isn't included in Digital Foundry's analysis.
Because every Nintendo game has this resolution, right?
Game is great, regardless resolution and draw distance, and that's most important.
Getting tired of the "wah its the engine" shitposts.
Unreal or Unity couldn't run something like this on the given hardware, and a lot of the visual/lighting rendering are well ahead of features found on PS360 ports.
As great as the Switch is, there is a limited amount of resources available that shows across many titles. Monolith working with what they have, while also trying to push forward with more heavy visual features instead of just languishing around.
When we get to Nintendo's next gen they'll be ahead of the curve.
Unreal or Unity couldn't run something like this on the given hardware, and a lot of the visual/lighting rendering are well ahead of features found on PS360 ports.
As great as the Switch is, there is a limited amount of resources available that shows across many titles. Monolith working with what they have, while also trying to push forward with more heavy visual features instead of just languishing around.
When we get to Nintendo's next gen they'll be ahead of the curve.
Mira is a beautiful world, still one of the best realised in all of gaming. I think some the advances become a lot more obvious in motion.
Even just the foliage/grass is a massive improvement. X was still using 2D sprites.
Xenoblade X sure captures massive scale in a way no other game really has though.
It's a shame Shulk's jacket doesn't look quite as nice as his Xenoblade 2 rendition though.
It's not low effort for a Remaster, I mean, they added an extra epilogue. It's just not really mind-boggling high effort.
Every time someone brings up FC, it becomes a couple of hours longer. I saw 10 hrs just the other day, then supposedly 20 hrs if you really stretch it lol. Now 30?
I mean when you compare BotW that has destructible world and strong physics runs at 900p and this games that runs 720p with dips (very similar like Xenoblade Chronicles 2), you cant not to think that something is wrong with engine, or that Monolith Soft has problem with optimisation, or didn't have enough time or other resources.
I'll leave my comment to the only part of the question that I am personally interested in and let the rest be. XC2 was also resource constrained - it was made on a smaller internal team - if memory serves: in part due to MonolithSoft needing to provide support for BOTW, in part since they had too large a turnover in engine staff and in part since they had a stringent deadline. Ultimately we are not likely to get a definite answer without MonolithSoft stating it flat out, which nobody expect to happen. My point is, that up to now no game has been produced with the XB2 engine where the resources that have been available match with the scope of the overall game. In the case of XBDE the resources were enough to reimplement the original XB assets in the XB2 engine, add quality of life aspects, build additional content, and do selective upgrades of some of the base assets. There was not enough resources to redo all the assets.
Given the production schedule for MonolithSoft I would also expect the majority of the engine related resources (who would be needed to optimize the resolution) to be allocated to the next game from that production group rather than the remaster, leaving the XBDE with the limited number of engine resources that was nessecary to reimplement XB in the XB2 engine.
I like Xenoblade a lot. But as of right now the truth is still that the best selling entry in the series is a sub 2 million seller, which is still better than the original XB. With sales numbers like this Nintendo will allocate funding to MonolithSoft accordingly. Funding will scale with the success of the franchise, but until XB hits rather large sakes numbers I suspect that the scope of Takahashis narrative combined with the fanbase expectations for graphical fidelity will outpace what Nintendo is happy to fund. Don't be negative though - the current funding situation around XB games is still very much preferable to MonolithSoft pre. Nintendo. They will get there over time and with sufficient franchise care - but it will require time. :)
Consensus is somewhere between 10 and 20 hours depending on how much side content you do, considering how long people played Xenoblade 2 for though I can definitely see people going over 30 hours lol
To be fair even DF didn't care too much based on John's review. That 30 Page thread got to 30 pages for other reasons
Its not at all low effort, its actually solid effort, its improved in every way compared to original (textures, models, geometry, lighting, shadows, depth of field, effects, UI, extra content, sound..) expect moving trees, its just resolution thats lower than expected.
The game seems to look OK. Portable mode without crazy sharpening filter is much appreciated. Still don't know why they can't patch that out of XB2.
Would have been better if they had kept moving trees though.
Would have been better if they had kept moving trees though.
BOTW goes into the 800's and down to 18fps in some areas. The physics are also what we saw commonly in PC games during the mid 2000's, wouldn't really call the world destructible either (you can take down some trees that will then respawn in 20 minutes).
Overall looking at it in depth, especially when compared to the BOTW2 trailer, BOTW1 looks fairly outdated and bad in some areas. The textures are very low res and the lighting is basic; many objects dont even have shadows if you go back over it.
The Switch at the end of the day is still a mobile processor with a very weak CPU, low memory bandwidth and a small but feature rich GPU. And that's not complaining, its a very nice system and the majority of games on the System push it. They all look great compared to games on phones where devs cant be bothered to do anything other then sell lootcrates. But at the same time, it's not going to get 1080p on everything, especially when the XBO wasn't able to do that.
Do the people complaining about the trees not see that they were made up by just a bunch of flat 2D billboard textures moving in a circular motion? In DE there's actual 3D geometry and the new trees hold up a lot better under scrutiny IMO.
That said, I would have loved animations of course.
That said, I would have loved animations of course.
Oh yeah, I'm sure. I tend to go very slow through these types of games in comparison to the averages on How Long To Beat.
But why would it be a budget release? It's not some huge classic multiplatform game that everyone has played to death, just like Wii U "definitive" game ports to most people (especially in the US) it's a brand new game, because Nintendo shipped so few copies for Wii, and then on 3DS it required the New 3DS. Nor is it a budget-type title with only a few hours of gameplay. And they redid all the music, the UI, a lot of the artwork, added a lot of new story content.
After patches, 90% of games runs at locked 30 FPS. You dont have those kind of physics in modern open world games (chopping trees, moving rocks, setting grass on fire, using wind, wind having effect on fire direction and clouds, using lightning, drying out pounds..).
Maybe textures are not high res, but lighting is far from basic, you can look here depth tech analysis about Zelda BotW.
Zelda: Breath of the Wild: The Technical Analysis
Posted on behalf of brainchild courtesy of the Adopt-A-User program, Gaming Edition. NOTE: Do you also have a thread you felt like that is worth posting, but you lack the posting capabilities to do so? Give the volunteers at Adopt-A-User a call, and we will assess whether or not your thread is...
www.resetera.com
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive are far from good examples for what exactly Switch hardware is capable.
It's true that Xenoblade 2 and Breath of the Wild make different trade offs technically but I think most people would agree that BOTW in general prioritises things better.
I'll just say I'm really glad I'm not a completionist. I'd still be playing X at this point.:P
That the sharpening filter has been reduced/removed is a huge relief for me, since that made XC2 completely unplayable. It didn't help that I also disliked that game, so I'm pretty stoked for this re-release.
I will not speak for John, but every video has trade offs for time investment and return. John could wax lyrically about Minute differences in versions covering every Single effect, and the video would take much longer to produce. Our audience is fickle and sometimes cares much more for immediacy than depth. Countless times have John or myself taken the time to produce a careful, thoightful, indepth Video which is not watched - yet a video which took 1 or 2 days to make is watched 10 fold.
I'm really wondering what John expected more of to be honest. Throughout the video he mentions how it doesn't go as far as he thought it would, but really what else could they have done? It looks like nearly everything was updated (some parts better than others sure), and then put into XC2's engine. Improved models, improved textures, shadow maps, more foliage, motion blur, SSR, etc. What else could there be done to it? I guess maybe go further into remake territory, but that isn't what this is.
Saying that, I found XC2 hard to play on my 4K TV and distracting in portable mode. I really wanted to ignore the resolution but found it really difficult. I really kind of wish they could have sacrificed some graphical effects and gone for something more simple in order to get a much cleaner result, rather than try to push for more modern techniques that the Switch struggles with in this engine. But it is good to see that the resolution might hit the higher boundaries more often than XC2 and that the sharpening has been toned down; that will help a great deal.
I've never actually played this one so I am tempted to pick it up some time.
Saying that, I found XC2 hard to play on my 4K TV and distracting in portable mode. I really wanted to ignore the resolution but found it really difficult. I really kind of wish they could have sacrificed some graphical effects and gone for something more simple in order to get a much cleaner result, rather than try to push for more modern techniques that the Switch struggles with in this engine. But it is good to see that the resolution might hit the higher boundaries more often than XC2 and that the sharpening has been toned down; that will help a great deal.
I've never actually played this one so I am tempted to pick it up some time.
It's far from being a disaster but for me it is a disappointing upgrade for a two generations leap.
Xenoblade X still is the best looking Xenoblade out there, despite lacking some of the effects of XB2 or XBDE. Practically it had the right compromises. And budget I assume.
Xenoblade X still is the best looking Xenoblade out there, despite lacking some of the effects of XB2 or XBDE. Practically it had the right compromises. And budget I assume.
That's a real shame, to be honest. The more nitty gritty details are the most interesting parts.
Yeah, grass pop-in looks really ugly and jarring.
Video was good and informative. Say thanks to John. Not sure why some are unsatisfied with the video, when video is clearly titled "Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition" and not "Xenoblade series deep dive".
A lot of crazy things have happened this year, but I still did not expect the sentiment of "pretty good but not as good a remaster as Saints Row the Third" to ever be uttered.
It'll be nice when the full power of this game can be unleashed on better hardware or emulators.
I think there's some camera trickery going on, if you look at the end of the shot when the Xenoblade Chronicles case is placed, you can see a faint version of the underlying rain puddle footage, as opposed to actual raindrops hitting the cases. The precious rare Wii game case is safe! (probably!)
It'll be nice when the full power of this game can be unleashed on better hardware or emulators.
I think there's some camera trickery going on, if you look at the end of the shot when the Xenoblade Chronicles case is placed, you can see a faint version of the underlying rain puddle footage, as opposed to actual raindrops hitting the cases. The precious rare Wii game case is safe! (probably!)
I respectfully disagree. I think your expectations are perhaps quite unreasonable and do not really correspond with the expectations held by the market. In addition, some of the assertions that you are making are also not true. For one thing, the Switch is not behind in tech (at least in relation to consoles in general). It is using an SOC from 2015 (newer than what is in the base model Xbox One and PS4). The reason why it does not perform as well as those systems is because it is a mobile SOC built for what is essentially a tablet. There is a reason why it cannot and it is not expected to push out graphics that match that of an Xbox One or PS4, it is the same reason that the PS4 and Xbox One cannot be made into the same form factor as the Switch with portability: power consumption. Switch prioritizes portability and that means certain trade offs have to be made regarding the performance of the system in order to make that possible. Sony and MS have not built their systems for portability in mind so they do not have to design around that. Your comparison of the Switch hardware to the PS4 hardware is not very logical since you are comparing two very different pieces of hardware with different use cases in mind (stationary system connected to a TV at all times versus a hybrid game system that can be played on the go); that is like comparing an iPad to a full fledge desktop PC. Digital Foundry are not giving Nintendo a free pass, but they are reviewing based on the realities and aim of this system (a portable gaming system will never be able to surpass its similarly priced contemporary stationary counterparts). I would also revise expectations for the future direct Switch successors. While significant gains have been made in mobile hardware, I very much doubt even newer mobile SOCs can push out native 4K for games like Xenoblade DF (though a successor with a more modern SOC would for sure run and display these games better). That is just the nature of mobile hardware.
Considering Digital Foundery is tied to Eurogamer I'm actually surprised that it begins with that operation Rainfall thing that had no impact on bringing the game to West (as in Europe got the games pretty easily with collector editions and all that).
It's NoA that sucked balls, NoE did well.
It's even why we got the English VA instead of the usual US one.
It's NoA that sucked balls, NoE did well.
It's even why we got the English VA instead of the usual US one.