• 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.

plusaflag

User requested ban
Banned
Jan 7, 2019
625
yoshi_nintendo_switch4wj7v.png


Yoshi's graphics were striking to me the first time I watched its E3 2017 trailer back in the day. The combinaison of depth-of-field, motion blur and lifelike assets in the scenery made it feel like the most visually stunning game delivered by Nintendo, at least to my taste. The part at 0:17 especially looked believable, it was a quantum jump in graphics compared we've had so far on Nintendo's platforms.

Fast forward to this year's DF direct feed analysis of the game in both docked and portable mode. Looking at it, I can't help but notice the downgrade in visuals : while the lighting seems to have only taken minor hits, the resolution and AA quality have been notched down quite a bit. Now my attempt in this thread is to find out believable reasons as to why this happened. I personally have no knowledge which would allow me to tackle this question in a constructive way but I would be interested in knowing what is ERA's take on this. If we assume that the reveal trailer was indeed running real time on a Switch, what could have caused the loss in fidelity in the final product? Could it have been a late decision to shift to lower clockspeeds in order to save on battery life? Could this or some other factor have have been the reason for the delay? Did the reveal scenes run on a more powerful dev kit unit, and if so what would be the evidence to support this theory? I feel like there is much to learn about this case if we knew the whole story.

Now bear in mind that DF's review was made on a demo launched one month or so before the actual game came out. So there might have been changes in between. Thanks for your feedback.
 

OwOtacon

Alt Account
Banned
Dec 18, 2018
2,394
I mean Yoshi's Wooly World had a similar level of change in its visuals, so I'm guessing it's A) optimising for framerate B) game design and visual design shifts.
 

DarkLordMalik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,626
The game looks super clean to me even on a 4K TV. Might be a little blurry but the visual style is good enough that you don't notice it as much. I don't see any downgrade but some cut content and I have finished it.
 

AllEchse

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,125
It's an Unreal Engine game so I guess the Trailer could have just been from a PC Build.
 

Feep

Lead Designer, Iridium Studios
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,602
yoshi_nintendo_switch4wj7v.png


Yoshi's graphics were striking to me the first time I watched its E3 2017 trailer back in the day. The combinaison of depth-of-field, motion blur and lifelike assets in the scenery made it feel like the most visually stunning game delivered by Nintendo, at least to my taste. The part at 0:17 especially looked believable, it was a quantum jump in graphics compared we've had so far on Nintendo's platforms.

Fast forward to this year's DF direct feed analysis of the game in both docked and portable mode. Looking at it, I can't help but notice the downgrade in visuals : while the lighting seems to have only taken minor hits, the resolution and AA quality have been notched down quite a bit. Now my attempt in this thread is to find out believable reasons as to why this happened. I personally have no knowledge which would allow me to tackle this question in a constructive way but I would be interested in knowing what is ERA's take on this. If we assume that the reveal trailer was indeed running real time on a Switch, what could have caused the loss in fidelity in the final product? Could it have been a late decision to shift to lower clockspeeds in order to save on battery life? Could this or some other factor have have been the reason for the delay? Did the reveal scenes run on a more powerful dev kit unit, and if so what would be the evidence to support this theory? I feel like there is much to learn about this case if we knew the whole story.

Now bear in mind that DF's review was made on a demo launched one month or so before the actual game came out. So there might have been changes in between. Thanks for your feedback.
Josh Adams and the team at Epic have done a fantastic job porting UE4 over to the Switch, but there's only so much blood you can squeeze out of a stone. E3 demos are hard to hit...aggressive optimization is usually done near the end of the process, so E3 trailers often have to A) "Guess" at how they can make the final game look after this pass, with all necessary game objects and rendering implemented, and B) Please the fans and suits alike, thereby pushing "A" to a generally more optimistic place than maybe would otherwise warrant.

It's just the reality of game development. You do what you can, for however long you can, until your money and/or time runs out. That's just...how things work.
 
Oct 27, 2017
140
Hot take: showing a slightly different game in development a considerable time before release isn't false advertising because that's how game development works.
Seems like development should talk to marketing some times, then.
Correct. False advertising would be if the recent and current ads or spots for the game advertised the old gameplay from earlier builds.
Are you saying pre-release trailers aren't ads meant to sell the game?
 
OP
OP
plusaflag

plusaflag

User requested ban
Banned
Jan 7, 2019
625
It's an Unreal Engine game so I guess the Trailer could have just been from a PC Build.
While this is probably the most believable reason, Nintendo doesn't have a recent history of 'bullshotting' their games prior to launch. This is why I supposed that the game shown in the E3 trailer must have been running on a Switch hardware of some sort. I am not outright saying that this was running on a Switch Pro (or whatever is rumoured to be an existing speced-up Switch) but rather that it was running on final hardware, and that adjustments were made after development started.

In short, I assume that the game in its E3 form was running on a normal Switch and that this level of graphics was feasible, but that further considerations might have led Nintendo and Feel Good to downgrade the game's visuals. Is it a stretch? Is AllEchse right, and is that the end of this thread?
 

Devil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,662
The game looks super clean to me even on a 4K TV. Might be a little blurry but the visual style is good enough that you don't notice it as much. I don't see any downgrade but some cut content and I have finished it.

I disagree completely. The game looks ugly to me. It's the opposite of clean. It's blurry and has very bad depth effects that often sort of shimmer. Owner of a LG C8 OLED here.

I already had a bad feeling about the visual quality after seeing the more recent trailers. The final product is a huge disappointment to me.
 

Watershed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,816
I don't think the two are so different. There is a downgrade in visual fidelity but the aesthetic is still the same. The devs prioritized framerate and, while a little blurry, the final game is still beautiful.
 

jediyoshi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,126
Seems like development should talk to marketing some times, then.

And then?

While this is probably the most believable reason, Nintendo doesn't have a recent history of 'bullshotting' their games prior to launch. This is why I supposed that the game shown in the E3 trailer must have been running on a Switch hardware of some sort. I am not outright saying that this was running on a Switch Pro (or whatever is rumoured to be an existing speced-up Switch) but rather that it was running on final hardware, and that adjustments were made after development started.

In short, I assume that the game in its E3 form was running on a normal Switch and that this level of graphics was feasible, but that further considerations might have led Nintendo and Feel Good to downgrade the game's visuals. Is it a stretch? Is AllEchse right, and is that the end of this thread?

The two things you're pointing out aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,346
Who knows. Maybe you'll see that higher res version of the game, come switch pro.

Honestly it just looks like all your issues are just based on the output resolution, which could easily be fixed in that rumored switch revision easily.

Maybe the original version of the game was the one in the trailer, tailored for switch pro and they had to scale it back in order to fit current switch specs in the meantime.

I'm just making shit up, but if I see a higher res patch for this game down the line it wouldn't be too crazy of an idea. These guys know what's up much, much more in advance than us and they can set up their schedules how they see fit. Maybe it's part of their plan. We'll see once we get a confirmation on that pro model (if it even exists at some point)
 

DarkLordMalik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,626
I disagree completely. The game looks ugly to me. It's the opposite of clean. It's blurry and has very bad depth effects that often sort of shimmer. Owner of a LG C8 OLED here.

I already had a bad feeling about the visual quality after seeing the more recent trailers. The final product is a huge disappointment to me.
It is not as bad if you actually play it. I am quite sure it was an upgrade over the demo that I also played. The demo looked disappointing but the final game does look more pleasing.

Shimmering and Depth of Field are indeed disappointing and the IQ is blurry as I said, but the art style goes a long way to hide these flaws. Hence I said it looks clean enough that I don't mind it. It is really fun in co-op and I also thought that it looked great no matter whether you play in portable or on TV.
 

ThreepQuest64

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
5,735
Germany
showing a slightly different game in development a considerable time before release isn't false advertising because that's how game development works.
So development apparently works like this: let the audience show of what devs are theoretical capable of in order to sell their game/trailer to as much people as possible, since visuals are often a key-factor, especially in AAA titles. I mean, they could show their gameplay in wireframe mode, right!?? Okay, a little bit more realistic, with not-so-detailed placeholders, dumped down textures and stuff. And they could work their way up and improve on the graphics. But apparently, for some strange reason, game development works the opposite: get people exicted about the graphics, paddle back and pull that "you guys know or should know that this is typicall"-trope of "how development works".

It may works like that and may explains it, but it still sucks and is no excuse.
 

Deleted member 5535

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,656
The delay is pretty much the reason, I guess. They probably couldn't do something with how it was and then they had to change to be able to release the product. It happens. Not as much with Nintendo products but they aren't exempt of that reality.
 

TheMoon

|OT|
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,778
Video Games
I definitely recall seeing differences between trailer and final product (this side by side of Rex) but it was probably just changed during development, not necessarily a downgrade.
Yea. ...the other way around. Big improvements actually. You're just so used to hearing about downgrades that you seemingly assumed "differences" meant worse.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,618
Spain
The trailer ran at 30FPS, the final game runs at 60. Double the framerate, half the resolution.

Edit: wtf, that video of the 2017 trailer is 60FPS, I would have sworn it was 30.
Then yeah, it's definitely a downgrade.
 
Oct 29, 2017
4,721
???



I dunno what you're seeing, but the final version looks significantly better than the original E3 2017 version!
 
Another take on Yoshi from Gamexplain is also available

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
We've done an analysis of the final build here:



While the Bokeh has been toned down during gameplay, it is retained in the cutscenes. Other than that and the significantly lower dynamic resolution (that happens to be temporally upsampled to improve image quality), there are no significant downgrades, and in fact there are improvements to directional shadows (Yoshi's model only has a blob shadow in the trailer) and the framerate is flawless.

Material rendering in the final build is also superb and I go into pretty good detail as to why that is, so feel free to take a look.
 

jariw

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,283
The delay is pretty much the reason, I guess. They probably couldn't do something with how it was and then they had to change to be able to release the product. It happens. Not as much with Nintendo products but they aren't exempt of that reality.

The delay wasn't cause by the graphics side of things. They redesigned the whole game between the reveal and the product launch, which caused the delay. The back sides were part of the main levels in the initial design.
 

Opa-Opa

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 16, 2018
1,766
To me, it was one of the best looking and best crafted games I've ever seen, but now I see the light, thanks.
 
Oct 29, 2017
4,721
The delay wasn't cause by the graphics side of things. They redesigned the whole game between the reveal and the product launch, which caused the delay. The back sides were part of the main levels in the initial design.

Yup. They realised that they created a level design nightmare for themselves part-way through development and simply just had to simplify the level design all throughout the game if they wanted any hope of ever releasing the game.
 

cyba89

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,632
Apart from maybe resolution (which is still fine on TV) the final game looks quite a bit better to me.
 

Deleted member 10737

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
49,774
i'm sorry what? the initial reveal looked bland and boring, when they showed it the second time pretty much everyone (including me) were pleasantly surprised with how far along it's come and how much better it looks. it was massively upgraded and it's obvious they used the delay to crank up the visual aesthetic up to 11.
yeah the game has low resolution, but it does a good job masking it, and it's rock solid 60 fps.
 
Last edited:

EvilBoris

Prophet of Truth - HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
16,684
I suppose with a switch game they are also going to be optimising for battery life and thermals.
Perhaps the machines were getting a little too hot
 

Charamiwa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,056
Breath of the wild. Initial reveal trailer looked much, much better than the final product.
I don't know why people always say this. The reveal trailer was a cutscene. The only bullshit is the crazy image quality on that first field shot. For the rest, during the actual gameplay reveal 6 months later, it looked similar if not worse than the end product.
 
OP
OP
plusaflag

plusaflag

User requested ban
Banned
Jan 7, 2019
625
We've done an analysis of the final build here:



While the Bokeh has been toned down during gameplay, it is retained in the cutscenes. Other than that and the significantly lower dynamic resolution (that happens to be temporally upsampled to improve image quality), there are no significant downgrades, and in fact there are improvements to directional shadows (Yoshi's model only has a blob shadow in the trailer) and the framerate is flawless.

Material rendering in the final build is also superb and I go into pretty good detail as to why that is, so feel free to take a look.

Thank you so much, I've heard of you through your work on LoZ: BotW but didn't know you were creating content for Gamexplain. I've watched the video and while I agree with your remark about Yoshi's shadow in your quote (and about everything that was said in your video), the final product still looks noticeably worse to me. Maybe I am the resolution>eye candy category of gamers, that you (or your colleague) also mentioned in your video.
The delay wasn't cause by the graphics side of things. They redesigned the whole game between the reveal and the product launch, which caused the delay. The back sides were part of the main levels in the initial design.
Yup. They realised that they created a level design nightmare for themselves part-way through development and simply just had to simplify the level design all throughout the game if they wanted any hope of ever releasing the game.
That would be a convincing point, but - and excuse my impertinence - is there any evidence to back this up?
 
Last edited:
Oct 29, 2017
4,721
On that matter, there was a very interesting post made in the YCW OT thread regarding modding the game... where it's possible to actually alter the UE4 rendering settings to increase the resolution!

It's possible to change the game's resolution and effects quality through modding. It's not something for the average user but it's interesting to see the scalability of Unreal Engine 4 paired with a game like Crafted World on Switch. Framerate is another issue.


Original Handheld
t1DPDPS.jpg


Forced 1080p in Handheld Mode (with DoF turned down) (Supersampled)
351YQnE.jpg


Original Handheld
Nkmdr57.jpg


Forced 1080p in Handheld (with DoF turned down) (Supersampled)
OfEk4K5.jpg

Would love to see a video on these modded settings showing how it affects performance... Would make for a great video that may perhaps show how UE4 settings impact performance on Switch!
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,480
Thank you so much, I've heard of you through your work on LoZ: BotW but didn't know you were creating content for Gamexplain. I've watched the video and while I agree with your remark about Yoshi's shadow in your quote (and about everything that was said in your video), the final product still looks noticeably worse to me. Maybe I am the resolution>eye candy category of gamers, that you (or your colleague) also mentioned in your video.

No problem! And yeah, if you're the kind of person that cares about resolution clarity, I can see how the game looks notably worse to you, because all of the effects in the game run at a lower resolution before being upsampled, which definitely produces a softer image, where detail in the materials are more difficult to resolve. I just wanted to make sure people weren't getting the wrong impression, because in terms in the actual rendering pipeline/materials/effects, the game hasn't really been downgraded.

And for the record, yes, that was me speaking in the video :)
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
3,918
I don't know why people always say this. The reveal trailer was a cutscene. The only bullshit is the crazy image quality on that first field shot. For the rest, during the actual gameplay reveal 6 months later, it looked similar if not worse than the end product.

Because that field shot was not obviously a cut-scene. In-fact, I'd be willing to be that bit wasn't a cut scene and just BOTW running on a very high-end machine. That said, when the obviously-cinematic section of the trailer starts, the image quality doesn't look significantly different from what we had seen before, leading many of us to believe that the whole game would end up looking like this.

But yes, the gameplay reveal later on did look similar to the final product.
 

AllEchse

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,125
They did it in Zelda no less, BotW had a massive downgrade and Nintendo officially admitted it and even went so far as to "justify" it yet some fans deny it even happened.

C2ehhjnUAAAAlWk.jpg
There is no place as lush as the Reveal shot, but that release screenshot is really unfavorable cause it's from the distance and pointed downwards.
There are nice lush grassy fields in Zelda that come close to giving the vibe of the reveal trailer.

Anyway Yoshi was still more than a year off from releasing at the time of the Trailer and Optimization is something for the later stages of development.
Maybe it's for battery life reasons or it's the actual retail switch hardware that just isn't powercul enough for that fidelity.
I guess we'll never really knoe unless the game was playable at the E3 Booth that year.
The game doesn't scale it's graphica dynamically either right? So a homebrewed overclocked Switchalso wouldn't help.
I also don't think Nintendo never did Bullshots, even if this game wasn't developed inhouse seeing that it was GoodFeel.
 

unicornKnight

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,188
Athens, Greece
Hot take: showing a slightly different game in development a considerable time before release isn't false advertising because that's how game development works.
This.

I don't think it was intentional, I think the utilization of UE4 was decided after the initial reveal, the game also was delayed from 2018 to 2019 and even the gameplay seems to have changed a lot since then. A lot seem to have happened in that project.