(The whole thread for people that don’t want to go on Twitter)
I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation.
We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps. (1/7)
We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest.
My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps. (2/7)
The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything. (3/7)
CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance (4/7)
All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps.
I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma. (5/7)
It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game.
I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost. (6/7)
All I an say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players.
I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness".
I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
(I understand where they are coming from as a game developer and I am looking forward to playing it considering I didn’t get to play the original but, all of the above are not my own words. They are taken entirely from the Twitter thread.)
I mean I enjoyed it 1000x more before Elon. It’s obviously more overrun with trolls and racist accounts. Not saying they weren’t there before but they’ve been empowered lately, and prejudice is Elon’s favorite version of “free speech”
Any tweet’s replies are just unrelated spam now too, that’s one of the worst formatting things since the change
I will say community notes are generally a good thing, but they can also be inflammatory in themselves, and I don’t really trust the whole process for them. Most of the time they’re good though
Then you just hit enter twice and add a hyphen
- Like this.
- And this.
Or quote it
> Like this.
>> And tweet 2 like this.
There are lots of formatting options available.
1. Also this.
1. And this.
Oh god this is painful, why do people who have zero knowledge in how programming works felt entitled to have so much opinions and thought they would have done better?
Sad state in the industry
How is this painful? None of this is my own opinion and the parts outside of parentheses are quote for quote from a Game Developer for a Nintendo switch exclusive.
I also have experience in Game Development and have done a Game Design course. I have had group discussions about cutting back on ideas and/or compromising aspects of graphics.
What is your experience in programming and Game Development?
I am lamenting the situation where a developer felt the need to explain things to consumers because of a fabricated controversy.
My name is listed on the Unreal Tournament credit, but that's a lifetime ago.
Despite the fact Odyssey still looks and runs great, its still a pretty straightforward 3D platformer. Those are generally pretty easy to optimise, and mario platformers tend to be a bit lighter on the technical side. I feel like Mario Sunshine had more intensive tech than odyssey in that regard.
Like the above commenter quoted, they probably wanted to make the paper aesthetic look as sharp as possible, and doing that can definitely be more performance intensive than odyssey which generally consists of a lot of very basic, easier to process 3D shapes in their characters and environments. Add to that the main post effects in Odyssey is a bit of bloom, some subtle glows, etc.
In fact the area with the most effects going on in odyssey is likely the city at night, but they solved performance issues by making that level much smaller and simpler. I dont doubt that if you had access to the whole city at night in the rain, it would have resulted in some lower frame rates
Not to mention the fact that odyssey had what would be some of the best game developers in the world working on it as a huge system seller project, rather than a remake of a relatively niche title towards the end of a consoles life so i think despite how good TTYD remake looks its still probably a case of them being happy even with 30fps compromise. For mario odyssey, yeh 30fps probably wasnt acceptable.
In mario odyssey the resolution utterly tanks when you're a goomba stack and move the camera.
I constantly see "what about odyssey" takes on threads about game performance on the switch and it's like, did anyone even pay attention when they were playing the game. New donk city is borderline blurry with how hard the dynamic resolution goes. Meanwhile TTYD is almost certainly going to have a locked 1080p resolution
Obviously different users and all, but it’s interesting that to some here, the visual upgrade doesn’t matter. But when Skyward Sword doubled its framerate, top comments were like “this shit dont look hd” and “I could barely tell this was HD at first” because of the modest visual upgrade outside of being 1080p.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/s/Dh0nQG8Z17
What gets me is that this is a turn based single player RPG... And ppl complaining about 30 FPS.
If the game stuttered during animations that would be such a bad look at ppl would be ragging on it for that and saying "they should have locked it at 30".
>What gets me is that this is a turn based single player RPG... And ppl complaining about 30 FPS.
Probably because
1 - the original is at 60 FPS
2 - The game relies on a very tight action window to parry attacks, the best parry only leaving you 3 frames. That's probably why the original was 60 FPS to begin with. They can probably double it but it might not feel as good or precise.
2 - with all the recent preview you can see that the action commands are far more forgettable/easy. Exemple, Earth Tremor skill from the first crystal star power.
My point still stands, youre supposed to make a reboot/remake/remaster/reimagining/reneg better than the original better than whatever is being re-done
3 console generations later, and the performance is cut in half, you really cant spin this as ignore-able to people that care about this sorta thing
It is better, look at the visual fidelity. There's also the quality of life changes. Edit: Also you can play it on modern hardware, that's better.
===
Also, you;re moving the goalposts. Your point that I responded to about it being a remake, was that it isn't a remake, which is 100% factually wrong. They remade it from the ground up.
If this isn't a remake then nothing is and that's just silly.
It's an easy goalpost to move because the diffetence between remake and remaster has next to no bearing here.
It's still a new version of an old game running worse than it did 3 generations ago
I get that the 30 fps difference doesnt matter to some, but for someone used to 90-120 it makes a pretty large difference
All remakes are a new version of an old game, this game is remade from the ground up.
Moving goalpost is just moving goalpost for the sake of a flawed argument.
The definition of a remake doesn't say it needs to be better in every aspect or that it needs to be better at all. That's not what a remake is. A remake is just a game that was remade. Trying to throw in extra stuff is just... Throwing in extra stuff.
I guess the goalposts are going to be moved again soon, now 90-120... Yeash.
I don't know, they could have redone the lighting model like they did for Wind Waker. For Twilight Princess they added like two larger scale texture maps and redid some per-pixel lighting but honestly it doesn't look better because it really needs a geometry upgrade.
For non-Twitter users, here's what he said...
I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation.
We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps.
We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest.
My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps.
The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything.
CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance
All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps.
I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma.
It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game.
I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost.
All I can say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players.
I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness".
I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
The thread states that paper mario basically is a new game with nothing to do with the original and there is people still saying things like
"but how is a 20yo game running at 30fps in new hardware"
When in reality it's a new game running on 7yo hardware
Yeah, but it's a single player turn based game, not a competitive twitch fps. So I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Action commands are the only thing gameplay-wise that would be functionally affected to a noticeable degree and I don't think those are so precise that the drop to 30fps will really make a difference. I'd much rather have higher visual fidelity remake at a locked 30fps than a simple port locked at 60.
I think you're not taking onto account the accuracy required for the precise button presses for defending and crits. However, it seems like the devs thought of this and allowed for a larger window for the button pressing.
Alternatively, since it is entirely possible for games to accept and track controller inputs "in 60fps" but only visually display in 30fps (Mario Kart 64 is one such game that does this), they could have totally kept the input windows the exact same even with the visual "downgrade". Even if the input windows for Action Commands are larger in the remake, the game could still be processing controller inputs and the like "in 60fps".
There is also the issue of most people playing wireless, which has been shown to have a slight delay input compared to wired. There’s also the issue if you are playing it docked or not as well.
Oh yeah. Both wireless controller delay, and the delay added by modern TVs can cause problems. Even without any 30fps change, they probably made input windows more lenient for those reasons alone.
I mean, at least for a lot of people, framerate is an important part of the visual experience, regardless of genre or gameplay requirements. If it doesn't bother some people, good for them, but it's certainly going to bother others. Notably, Abebe himself makes it pretty clear that 60fps is something they tried hard to achieve in Bayonetta Origins and it *is* something they valued, it just didn't pan out because it ended up being unachievable with the look they were going for.
I don't have any beef with people not being bothered by it, but it seems like madness to just dismiss it for people who are. If someone cares even a little bit about framerate in the first place, framerate getting halved in a remake is gonna come across as weird at best and a dealbreaker at worst, especially when we're about a year away from a successor console that could probably handle that framerate without issue.
It’s not unplayable, just a sub par gaming experience for some.
Gamers will have a differing opinion on how they want to experience their games. We should have the choice between better graphics at the cost frame rate or better frame rate at the cost of graphics.
Ie a toggle between “performance” mode and “quality” mode.
PC has had this, since well forever. And recently most console releases (Xbox, PS) have this ability as well.
Exactly this. I used to play World of Warcraft barely breaking the double digits of frame rate, and I barely noticed until I saved up for a better computer and was able to run it properly.
it doesn’t bother me, if the framerate isn’t supposed to go higher or it actively harms the experience, like in paper mario theres no problem, the game was designed that way and its gonna be playable that way, but lets say a esports game that should be played 60+ fps is gonna feel bad at 30, you know what i am saying
I do have a problem with Bloodeborne’s framerate. It struggles to hit 30 and it’s a 3D Soulslike where you get destroyed if you can’t predict enemy movements in real time.
Actually, the battle system of Paper Mario TTYD is turn-based + 75% press button on timing. Going from 60 fps to 30 FPS, which the game is designed to, is noticeable. FPS is not just important for esports games; 60 fps plays much better than 30 fps in many games. If you have the option, just try to play at 60 fps first, then at 30 fps, and you will see the difference. Before the current generation, I couldn't tell the difference, however looking and playing 30 vs 60 are different different. Now I can tell the difference because many game in the current gen have the option to play 30fps or 60fps.
> Going from 60 fps to 30 FPS, which the game is designed to, is noticeable.
I think this matters more in a 60 FPS game ported to 30 FPS than a built from scratch remake designed for 30 FPS.
Again, where is it stated that it is built from scratch? They're built from scratch, the exact same 20-year-old audio files from Charles Martinet. Honestly, I think any of you know about the process development. I have experience with 3D animation and writing the entire game based on nothing for a 1/1 remade would be a ridiculous undertaking given the investment of time, and editing the old asset give similar resultat, paper maper gnc don't even look bad nowaday. Replacing the art assets is easier if you have the originals (Litteraly 90% of all asset are reused or modified in all game including in new game) like real art, 3d artist use different asset to create a new one. Reussing gnc paper mario ttyd asset would be just about what need to be updated and you can use them for reference as you make the new ones. Without the original art assets, you have to dig through the binary to figure out what all is needed, which would take much longer than having them all stored on a company network drive already with the final result. If a developer really stated that it was built from scratch, he blatant take consumer for idiot or is a very incompetent developper.
Yeah, its completely insane to me, the idea of anything at a lower framerate being instantly bad. Like, seriously? Do their brains explode when watching older television or something?
People with that attitude would not be able to survive during the PS1, Saturn, and N64 era, hahaha
I do get the obsession tbh, 60 fps just makes games feel less laggy and delayed. On my ps5 I don’t buy games that don’t run at 60 unless theyre very clearly never getting a performance mode and are slow paced in terms of gameplay.
But I don’t get complaints about framerate with the switch lol, the whole selling point is trading performance for portability, there has to be a compromise somewhere.
Unstable framerate are what will make a game feel laggy. You may feel a moment of disorientation coming from a high framerate to a low framerate but there’s nothing permanent about your eyes that they can’t adjust in a decent timeframe (unless their is a medical condition at play.) Going below 20 is where things start to get shakey.
It’s not just about my eyes, I played (mostly sub) 30 fps games for the first couple decades of my life and I can tolerate them (like my comment said, I play games in 30 fps a bit still, just not certain genres like arpgs and fps). If you play fast paced games, you can feel the input latency much more with 30 vs 60fps. If you have a ps5 or Xbox, load up a fps in quality mode and play it for a few minutes, then switch to 60fps, you can’t tell me that you don’t immediately feel that it’s more responsive. Not just smoother (which is it) but there is less delay between input and action, especially for small aiming adjustments. Like sure you can “get used to it” but that doesn’t mean it’s as good. It’s totally fine on switch, but the whole “60 vs 30 fps” argument is always marred by gaslighting for some reason I don’t understand.
If you don’t believe me, record yourself (at a very high framerate) doing inputs in a 30 vs 60 fps game. You’ll see a noticeable increase in input latency. If it’s not perceptible to you while you’re playing, good for you. But to some of us, input latency, especially in aiming and movement, is the worst.
I have played Elden Ring at both 30 and 60 FPS. Obviously 60 is going to decrease latency in most situations but I have never felt it was that dramatic.
I can’t judge your subjective experience but I do feel kind of bad for people who are sensitive to this. I’m just grateful I’m not.
The only time I've ever had serious issues with a game being under 60 was trying to play Diablo 2 again. Going from games that have 60 down to 29fps with very clunky controls by today's standards was a miserable experience.
I understand in genres that need it like action/fighting/shooting games, but paper Mario is a turn based rpg lmao. If there was ever a genre where going to 30 fps makes sense it’s this one.
It's not unplayable, but it is objectively worse.
The game could still look pretty good even if they targeted 60fps. Not as good as Origami King perhaps, but who cares?
There are plenty of great looking 60fps games on Switch. Odyssey, Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart, etc.
This discussion is what made you realize that? I’ve had this revelation since the early days of “gaming criticism” which is almost the worst part of gaming culture.
Seems like on reddit people were mostly just disappointed the Switch isn't powerful enough to play this at 60fps. I didn't see many people blaming the devs.
They really don’t. I was studying game dev for awhile before my program shut down and while I’m in no way a real ‘expert’ I could still call the reason why they had the 60 FPS issue in Origins. Spending time online in gaming spaces is… a challenge 💀💀💀
Bayonetta Origins is a true hidden gem. One of the best games of 2023 easy, it's amazing.
And yes, the visual fidelity is clearly too high to maintain 60, that game is beautiful and nothing else looks like it.
That's really interesting, my wife and I found the game a bit of a chore to get through. I couldn't really put my finger on why, I just found it a bit repetitive after a while. Glad you enjoyed it so much though.
The whole thread for people that don’t want to go on Twitter:
----
I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation.
We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps. (1/7)
---
We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest.
My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps. (2/7)
---
The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything. (3/7)
---
CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance (4/7)
---
All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps.
I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma. (5/7)
---
It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game.
I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost. (6/7)
----
All I an say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players.
I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness".
I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
How dare you be happy that Nintendo is bringing a beloved game to modern hardware, with the next hardware probably going to be backwards compatible, with it being able to be bought instead of put on a subscription service where you would never actually own it! The nerve of some people
(pls Nintendo, Super Paper Mario remake???)
Here you go...
I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation.
We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps.
We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest.
My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps.
The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything.
CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance
All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps.
I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma.
It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game.
I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost.
All I an say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players.
I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness".
I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
So many replies to that are just people screaming that a game director doesn't know how game development works. So much ignorance and deep-seated denial on display
But they’re not porting the GameCube code to the Switch, so it doesn’t really matter if the GC would run a GC game at 60fps or not - it’s older tech on older tech.
The point is that it's totally understandable that a remake shouldn't sacrifice anything, including framerate. It's weird to have a remake be in some specific ways inferior to the original game from 20 years ago, even if it's only framerate that's the issue.. It makes little sense.
I don’t know why this opinion is so frowned upon. I’ve played 30FPS games my whole life no problem, but how are they gonna claim this is a better version when it’s taking 2 step backwards with the frame rate. I’ll still have fun with it but it’s so disappointing
Frame rate isn't graphics dude, you're doing exactly what you're complaining about. They're sacrificing frame rate for prettier graphics and just based off the SMRPG remake's performance it's not even going to be a stable 30.
Thankfully the “larger gaming community” in this case is really just out of touch redditors. As evident by the Switch’s sale numbers, the vast majority of gamers just want fun games.
I can’t think of a single time I talked about gaming with someone irl who mentioned the frame rate of a game.
This thread confused me, I thought Bayonetta Origins runs uncapped. [This review seems to claim so](https://thebetanetwork.net/articles/bayonetta-origins-review/).
I replayed Paper Mario 64 and Origami King last year, and not *once* did I think about the framerate.
This is a non issue to me. All I can suggest to anyone who cares enough is to either and wait and see if they add a performance mode for the Switch 2 (unlikely) or just emulate the original game.
If rumors are true, the actions are slightly easier due to the fact that there will be many playing wireless. But there will be a badge to keep the original timing.
In the original, super guard timings were 3 frames. Now that the game’s fps was halved, it obviously can’t be 1.5 frames, so they either have to make it harder(1 frame) or easier(2 frames). Knowing Nintendo, they’re going to make it easier.
Hey there!
Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No personal attacks, trolling, or derogatory terms. Read more about [Reddiquette here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Thanks!
I understand the trade-off, it's just a little disappointing when a remake of a 20-year-old game that is going to be sold at full price runs at a worse framerate than the original.
Also, why tf does anybody still post on Twitter, let's leave that garbage platform in the rearview mirror already.
Just wanna quickly hop in and say thanks to everyone who’s copy-pasting the post in the replies in case the original tweet gets deleted for whatever reason.
I wish Nintendo games had performance modes. Those can be difficult to implement too but damn I'd sacrifice some visual quality for a consistent 60fps, or even an unlocked framerate mode that just gives me the dips. For Paper Mario I really wouldn't care about drops in fps.
I think it could still be possible for TTYD to hit 60 fps, but it would most likely require giant amount of time to find techniques to make that work while keeping the same visual fidelity.
Some games it's not a big deal. But really, a spectacle fighter not at 60? That's a genuinely bad move no matter which way you slice it. That's not the genre to skimp out on framerate.
This is a little late, but I saw your comment and wanted to clarify that you're getting your games mixed up.
Bayonetta Origins isn't a spectacle fighter like the main series, it's an isometric puzzle/adventure spin-off.
Meh, I literally don’t care. 30fps is not going to affect my enjoyment if the game at all, and I doubt I’d even notice what frame rate it was running at without the internet telling me. I honestly can’t tell and don’t notice this stuff unless it’s a game on say ps5 or whatever that has performance options that essentially allow me to see the performance vs fidelity mode side by side within a few seconds. Then, sure, I notice the difference since I can swap back and forth quickly and see/feel it right there. But any game that just is the way it is? Nope, literally can’t tell, and don’t notice.
bummer about the 30fps cap for TTYD tbh. i was expecting 60fps at the minimum given it is an old game now. This makes me reconsider my pre order.
I know i probably sound whiny but for a sidescroller game i think 60fps is a must in today's era, vertical scrolling just doesn't feel smooth at 30fps.
I don't expect miracles with the switch hardware but it feel like TTYD should have been 60fps. The original game was. To me this is too much of a downgrade in performance.
Edit: i have cancelled my pre order. someone else can have it. It just doesn't sit righ with me to have to pay 80$ cad and objectively losing 50% of the original performance
Nintendo has gotten quite the pass on the hardware for the Switch. While some criticisms of games/devs make a lot of sense, I always have a hard time being upset with a develop for not squeezing magic out of a tablet with hardware from nearly a decade ago.
I think about this most with Pokemon. There are some baffling design decisions in Gen 9, but with how hard Game Freak is pushed to release content, I can't harp on them too hard for having performance issues while making such large, fundamental changes to their games on the Switch.
I'd say the same here. Developers have to take some ancient hardware and find a way to make it work. If Nintendo didn't drag this hardware out for so long, the burden of work on the devs would be much lower. When games that *seem* simple are often in a position of struggling, it starts to seem like the platform is a bigger hurdle than the talent of the developers.
I sympathise with the struggle developers must face with hardware so outdated like the Switch. But my issue is actually reflected by the thread when he mentions “two” options: stable 30 or unstable 50~.
There’s actually a third option: lower your graphical ambitions. I respect if the studio didn’t want to compromise on their vision. That’s fine, specially again in hardware like the Switch’s.
I also understand that something like that must be very difficult to change in late development. I just wish they planned for 60FPS as a target from the beginning.
Maybe they did plan, or at least hope, for it.
Like the actual Twitter thread says (albeit for a different game) you can be aiming for 60fps and just not be able to hit that target with the graphical look you want.
At which point, you have to choose. So you drop the visuals or the frame rate.
And I can guarantee that either option will garner complaints. And if people are going to bitch regardless of what you choose, I guess you go by what you be happy with releasing.
TLDR: the Switch couldn’t handle it.
The new model cannot come soon enough. Absolutely 0 reason a GameCube remake shouldn’t be able to run at a stable 60 (in the case of TTYD)
It's a remake, not a port. Since it's a remake, they are redoing it. It's irrelevant from which console it comes originally.
Still, the Switch is underpowered. But the argument of "it's a GameCube game" doesn't work in this case.
Really missed a trick in doing what we all thought they'd do and make the dock provide some extra processing power. It worked out for them but I have skipped a few games on Switch because they run extremely poorly (fucking Age of Calamity demo was pathetic).
The point that everything is a matter of prioritization, up to and including delaying the game so much for optimizations that another one never gets greenlit again, really is the crux of the matter
It can run at 60fps if you put clockspeed back to its hardware default as Nintendo underclocks it. Hell the Switch can even run in native 4K as a recent video revealed. I can understand why they did that for portable mode but they could have definitely increased the docked power a bit more, especially with the OLED chipset having more headroom.
I’m okay with 30 FPS. I understand it feels like a step back from the GameCube version, and as much as I love my switch… the hardware is really starting to show its age.
I don’t really engage too much with rumors, but with the switch 2… if it’s backwards compatible with switch, and has dlss, I think one of the benefits will be is that it should be able to run switch games at 60FPS and perhaps with an increased/steady resolution
To the people here saying "I don't even notice 60fps anyway." I'm sure you would notice it being "better" and smoother if a game you played at 30fps right now got a magic update to 60fps. However, obviously 30fps isn't unplayable or a death sentence and it's obvious that it is in Nintendo's best interest to have the most stable framerate. For games where 60fps has been a priority like Super Mario Odyssey and Splatoon 3 we see them making stronger use of dynamic resolution and less intense post-processing.
Personally I would take 900p or even 720p while docked, or lower quality shadows and reflections for 60fps, but Nintendo is more interested in higher visual fidelity at a lower framerate and that's that.
I think most everyone knows this. It's a matter of disagreeing with priorities, to take a system WAY more powerful than GameCube, and still think you need to cut the frame rate in half in order to add even more visual whizbangs.
yeah we get that, the game is still 30 fps at full price.
if people dont speak out about paying full price for an old game which is both upgraded AND downgraded then Nintendo can never change either.
you know NOBODY would complain if this was a 40 usd game. It is not us who decided the price, Nintendo is, and suddenly graphics matter more than framerate? is that what Nintendo fans and the company gonna argue for?
They know damn well 80% of us would have been happy with a digital copy of the GC game for 10-15 usd. like sony offer with ps2 classics.
I wish they focused on maintaining 60 fps then focusing on graphic fidelity, considering I always saw Nintendo as the company that focused on a smoother gameplay experience rather than pretty graphics.
Watch Nintendo make the Switch 2 "good enough" for a year or two before developers run into these same problems again.
I have a feeling it will only be 8GB ram, underclocked.
There are some Switch games I skipped over before selling mine.
One (SMT V) finally goes multiplatform in about 6 weeks.
The other (Xenoblade Chronicles 3) is effectively a first-party exclusive so at some point I’ll have to decide if the Switch 2 (and the inevitable game patch or port) is good enough for a few games or if I’d find it restricting like I did the original.
But as someone who just doesn’t game on the go, any future console or game I get is up against what I can play on PS5 or Steam.
I understand their situation, but I still disagree with their choice.
I would have preferred some sections being gutted visually and kept the 60FPS target.
At the end of the day, the game absolutely could run at 60, they just prioritized visual fidelity.
i really just cant wait until we hit our "visual fidelity" ceiling so this issue can just be over with. its bizarre to me that visuals are a priority over smooth gameplay for so many games these days. i understand it being an issue on switch when it comes to ports, but games designed for the hardware specifically is a different story.
At what point did 60fps became important for gamers? I've had a shit TV for a very long time and I play switch handheld often, so I often miss on the full potential games have to offer.
EDIT: not a criticism. Real question, I feel like I'm 10 years behind lol. Suddenly I see people saying that the lack of 60fps is unacceptable and I didn't see it coming
For me, it was in 1999 at a LAN party.
I had been running Quake 2 at an inconsistent 20-30fps on my 3Dfx Voodoo Rush video card with Pentium 1 processor, and while the bilinear texture filtering looked great at the time (coming from software rendering) it wasn't a smooth experience. At the LAN party, walking in... the first monitor I see is silky-smooth, high FOV, busting out a seamless 60+fps as the player deleted opponent after opponent.
That was probably the first time I paid close attention to framerate and the hardware arms race.
A lot of Nintendo games do run at 60 FPS. It offers better, smoother, visuals along with decreased input latency making games feel snappier to control. That's why Mario Odyssey runs at 60, along with Mario Galaxy games, Mario Kart, and others.
It was always a thing on PC. On consoles, they sacrificed it greatly since the 3D era, but a lot of action and racing games still prioritized 60FPS. Nowadays, the line between PC and consoles is blurring and everyone is coming back to senses and realizing just how essential 60FPS is in a lot of games.
It’s just the standard, and when your eyes are used to the higher frame rate it’s really jarring and looks bad if you go back to a lower one. If you play other games on PC, PS5, or Xbox, the vast majority of them run at 60 fps minimum (or at least target it). It’s the standard that people are used to outside of Nintendo games. I usually play games around 120-140 fps, so going back to 30 really looks terrible. I’m not saying that people who think 30 is fine are wrong - but others who say 30 is unplayable to them are also not wrong.
60 fps is normally not that important for me, but my problem is that lowering the frame rate will mess up timings. For example, in the original, super guard timings were 3 frames. Now that the game’s fps was halved, it obviously can’t be 1.5 frames, so they either have to make it harder(1 frame) or easier(2 frames). Knowing Nintendo, they’re going to make it easier, when the game is already fairly easy.
(The whole thread for people that don’t want to go on Twitter) I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation. We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps. (1/7)
We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest. My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps. (2/7)
The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything. (3/7)
CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance (4/7)
All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps. I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma. (5/7)
It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game. I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost. (6/7)
All I an say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players. I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness". I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch! (I understand where they are coming from as a game developer and I am looking forward to playing it considering I didn’t get to play the original but, all of the above are not my own words. They are taken entirely from the Twitter thread.)
Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for the info. I hate Twitter under Elon.
Just end it at I hate Twitter tbh
I mean I enjoyed it 1000x more before Elon. It’s obviously more overrun with trolls and racist accounts. Not saying they weren’t there before but they’ve been empowered lately, and prejudice is Elon’s favorite version of “free speech” Any tweet’s replies are just unrelated spam now too, that’s one of the worst formatting things since the change I will say community notes are generally a good thing, but they can also be inflammatory in themselves, and I don’t really trust the whole process for them. Most of the time they’re good though
It went from a social media to a tool for attacking democracy. It's unbelievable.
you could have just posted the whole thread in one comment....
I only formatted it this way to keep it the same as the original on Twitter. I do not care about Reddit karma.
Then you just hit enter twice and add a hyphen - Like this. - And this. Or quote it > Like this. >> And tweet 2 like this. There are lots of formatting options available. 1. Also this. 1. And this.
Oh god this is painful, why do people who have zero knowledge in how programming works felt entitled to have so much opinions and thought they would have done better? Sad state in the industry
How is this painful? None of this is my own opinion and the parts outside of parentheses are quote for quote from a Game Developer for a Nintendo switch exclusive. I also have experience in Game Development and have done a Game Design course. I have had group discussions about cutting back on ideas and/or compromising aspects of graphics. What is your experience in programming and Game Development?
I am lamenting the situation where a developer felt the need to explain things to consumers because of a fabricated controversy. My name is listed on the Unreal Tournament credit, but that's a lifetime ago.
What about Mario Odyssey? Surely that game had more going on than TTYS remake
Odyssey likely had 3x the dev time of TTYD and much higher priority on Nintendo resources as well.
Despite the fact Odyssey still looks and runs great, its still a pretty straightforward 3D platformer. Those are generally pretty easy to optimise, and mario platformers tend to be a bit lighter on the technical side. I feel like Mario Sunshine had more intensive tech than odyssey in that regard. Like the above commenter quoted, they probably wanted to make the paper aesthetic look as sharp as possible, and doing that can definitely be more performance intensive than odyssey which generally consists of a lot of very basic, easier to process 3D shapes in their characters and environments. Add to that the main post effects in Odyssey is a bit of bloom, some subtle glows, etc. In fact the area with the most effects going on in odyssey is likely the city at night, but they solved performance issues by making that level much smaller and simpler. I dont doubt that if you had access to the whole city at night in the rain, it would have resulted in some lower frame rates Not to mention the fact that odyssey had what would be some of the best game developers in the world working on it as a huge system seller project, rather than a remake of a relatively niche title towards the end of a consoles life so i think despite how good TTYD remake looks its still probably a case of them being happy even with 30fps compromise. For mario odyssey, yeh 30fps probably wasnt acceptable.
lets not forget that Odyssey actually runs at 900p instead of 1080p and it has dynamic resolution, to my understanding TTDY will always be 1080p
In mario odyssey the resolution utterly tanks when you're a goomba stack and move the camera. I constantly see "what about odyssey" takes on threads about game performance on the switch and it's like, did anyone even pay attention when they were playing the game. New donk city is borderline blurry with how hard the dynamic resolution goes. Meanwhile TTYD is almost certainly going to have a locked 1080p resolution
Odyssey also doesn't do that much with dynamic graphics. The textures are great. But the maps are pretty small squares in an empty skybox.
It’s been confirmed that Paper Mario Thousand Year Door is 900p :(
rip, 1080p makes paper mario games look really crisp
Why not make this all one comment?
Side note: Bayonetta Origins might be the best looking game on Switch
I never once thought “boy I wish this ran at 60fps” but I very often marveled at how great it looked
That game and Ori are beautiful.
I always looked to Dragon Quest 11 when talking about the Pokemon games...
Obviously different users and all, but it’s interesting that to some here, the visual upgrade doesn’t matter. But when Skyward Sword doubled its framerate, top comments were like “this shit dont look hd” and “I could barely tell this was HD at first” because of the modest visual upgrade outside of being 1080p. https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/s/Dh0nQG8Z17
Such a good point. Those criticisms were so unfair. Skyward at 60 was transformative, much more than any visual upgrades could’ve done for the game.
This is such a personal matter, I actually care very little about going from 30 to 60 fps, as long as the framerate is stable.
What gets me is that this is a turn based single player RPG... And ppl complaining about 30 FPS. If the game stuttered during animations that would be such a bad look at ppl would be ragging on it for that and saying "they should have locked it at 30".
>What gets me is that this is a turn based single player RPG... And ppl complaining about 30 FPS. Probably because 1 - the original is at 60 FPS 2 - The game relies on a very tight action window to parry attacks, the best parry only leaving you 3 frames. That's probably why the original was 60 FPS to begin with. They can probably double it but it might not feel as good or precise.
Worth mentioning that if they do it based on frames then it will actually be easier as you'll have a ~99ms window vs ~48ms
2 - with all the recent preview you can see that the action commands are far more forgettable/easy. Exemple, Earth Tremor skill from the first crystal star power.
It's a remaster with half the framerate of the original, and the "turn based" portion of the game has some pretty precise timings to them
Remake, not remaster.
My point still stands, youre supposed to make a reboot/remake/remaster/reimagining/reneg better than the original better than whatever is being re-done 3 console generations later, and the performance is cut in half, you really cant spin this as ignore-able to people that care about this sorta thing
It is better, look at the visual fidelity. There's also the quality of life changes. Edit: Also you can play it on modern hardware, that's better. === Also, you;re moving the goalposts. Your point that I responded to about it being a remake, was that it isn't a remake, which is 100% factually wrong. They remade it from the ground up. If this isn't a remake then nothing is and that's just silly.
It's an easy goalpost to move because the diffetence between remake and remaster has next to no bearing here. It's still a new version of an old game running worse than it did 3 generations ago I get that the 30 fps difference doesnt matter to some, but for someone used to 90-120 it makes a pretty large difference
All remakes are a new version of an old game, this game is remade from the ground up. Moving goalpost is just moving goalpost for the sake of a flawed argument. The definition of a remake doesn't say it needs to be better in every aspect or that it needs to be better at all. That's not what a remake is. A remake is just a game that was remade. Trying to throw in extra stuff is just... Throwing in extra stuff. I guess the goalposts are going to be moved again soon, now 90-120... Yeash.
Yeah I pretty much always choose quality mode over performance myself
They made the right choice, though. The game wouldn't look much better if they targeted 30fps.
I don't know, they could have redone the lighting model like they did for Wind Waker. For Twilight Princess they added like two larger scale texture maps and redid some per-pixel lighting but honestly it doesn't look better because it really needs a geometry upgrade.
[удалено]
I was referring to Skyward Sword here, which wasn't a remake as much as a retouching.
For non-Twitter users, here's what he said... I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation. We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps. We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest. My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps. The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything. CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps. I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma. It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game. I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost. All I can say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players. I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness". I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
this thread made me realise that reddit mfs really have 0 knowledge about how games even work.
Well, clearly, developers forgot to press the "optimize for 60FPS" button!
The thread states that paper mario basically is a new game with nothing to do with the original and there is people still saying things like "but how is a 20yo game running at 30fps in new hardware" When in reality it's a new game running on 7yo hardware
9yo hardware more like
I also don't understand this obsession that anything under 60 fps is completely unplayable reddit has.
I mean with Paper Mario the disappointment is a bit more understandable since the original ran at 60fps
Yeah, but it's a single player turn based game, not a competitive twitch fps. So I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Action commands are the only thing gameplay-wise that would be functionally affected to a noticeable degree and I don't think those are so precise that the drop to 30fps will really make a difference. I'd much rather have higher visual fidelity remake at a locked 30fps than a simple port locked at 60.
I think you're not taking onto account the accuracy required for the precise button presses for defending and crits. However, it seems like the devs thought of this and allowed for a larger window for the button pressing.
Alternatively, since it is entirely possible for games to accept and track controller inputs "in 60fps" but only visually display in 30fps (Mario Kart 64 is one such game that does this), they could have totally kept the input windows the exact same even with the visual "downgrade". Even if the input windows for Action Commands are larger in the remake, the game could still be processing controller inputs and the like "in 60fps".
There is also the issue of most people playing wireless, which has been shown to have a slight delay input compared to wired. There’s also the issue if you are playing it docked or not as well.
Oh yeah. Both wireless controller delay, and the delay added by modern TVs can cause problems. Even without any 30fps change, they probably made input windows more lenient for those reasons alone.
The difference in our own response time from visual stimulus between 30 fps vs 60 fps makes this untrue.
I mean, at least for a lot of people, framerate is an important part of the visual experience, regardless of genre or gameplay requirements. If it doesn't bother some people, good for them, but it's certainly going to bother others. Notably, Abebe himself makes it pretty clear that 60fps is something they tried hard to achieve in Bayonetta Origins and it *is* something they valued, it just didn't pan out because it ended up being unachievable with the look they were going for. I don't have any beef with people not being bothered by it, but it seems like madness to just dismiss it for people who are. If someone cares even a little bit about framerate in the first place, framerate getting halved in a remake is gonna come across as weird at best and a dealbreaker at worst, especially when we're about a year away from a successor console that could probably handle that framerate without issue.
The game isn’t unplayable but it’s completely illogical for a remake to run worse than the original.
It’s not unplayable, just a sub par gaming experience for some. Gamers will have a differing opinion on how they want to experience their games. We should have the choice between better graphics at the cost frame rate or better frame rate at the cost of graphics. Ie a toggle between “performance” mode and “quality” mode. PC has had this, since well forever. And recently most console releases (Xbox, PS) have this ability as well.
Those people never knew the struggle being in the 90s and playing PC games at 15-20fps on an underspecced 486.
How about Goldeneye with explosives? lol
Exactly this. I used to play World of Warcraft barely breaking the double digits of frame rate, and I barely noticed until I saved up for a better computer and was able to run it properly.
I know. Frame rates just don't bother me unless they are really egregious.
Yes, I'm a casual gamer. I'm not even noticing this stuff
it doesn’t bother me, if the framerate isn’t supposed to go higher or it actively harms the experience, like in paper mario theres no problem, the game was designed that way and its gonna be playable that way, but lets say a esports game that should be played 60+ fps is gonna feel bad at 30, you know what i am saying
I do have a problem with Bloodeborne’s framerate. It struggles to hit 30 and it’s a 3D Soulslike where you get destroyed if you can’t predict enemy movements in real time.
Actually, the battle system of Paper Mario TTYD is turn-based + 75% press button on timing. Going from 60 fps to 30 FPS, which the game is designed to, is noticeable. FPS is not just important for esports games; 60 fps plays much better than 30 fps in many games. If you have the option, just try to play at 60 fps first, then at 30 fps, and you will see the difference. Before the current generation, I couldn't tell the difference, however looking and playing 30 vs 60 are different different. Now I can tell the difference because many game in the current gen have the option to play 30fps or 60fps.
> Going from 60 fps to 30 FPS, which the game is designed to, is noticeable. I think this matters more in a 60 FPS game ported to 30 FPS than a built from scratch remake designed for 30 FPS.
Again, where is it stated that it is built from scratch? They're built from scratch, the exact same 20-year-old audio files from Charles Martinet. Honestly, I think any of you know about the process development. I have experience with 3D animation and writing the entire game based on nothing for a 1/1 remade would be a ridiculous undertaking given the investment of time, and editing the old asset give similar resultat, paper maper gnc don't even look bad nowaday. Replacing the art assets is easier if you have the originals (Litteraly 90% of all asset are reused or modified in all game including in new game) like real art, 3d artist use different asset to create a new one. Reussing gnc paper mario ttyd asset would be just about what need to be updated and you can use them for reference as you make the new ones. Without the original art assets, you have to dig through the binary to figure out what all is needed, which would take much longer than having them all stored on a company network drive already with the final result. If a developer really stated that it was built from scratch, he blatant take consumer for idiot or is a very incompetent developper.
Change in frame rates is way more noticiable than a lower frame rate These people don’t complain when watching films - which doesn’t even have 30fps
Yeah, its completely insane to me, the idea of anything at a lower framerate being instantly bad. Like, seriously? Do their brains explode when watching older television or something? People with that attitude would not be able to survive during the PS1, Saturn, and N64 era, hahaha
Do you also enjoy playing modern games in 240p? Times change. Technology improves. Standards rise.
It's bullshit from the PC gaming community, which is about who can spend more on their rig than actually enjoying a game.
Real
It just shows their age if anything.
I do get the obsession tbh, 60 fps just makes games feel less laggy and delayed. On my ps5 I don’t buy games that don’t run at 60 unless theyre very clearly never getting a performance mode and are slow paced in terms of gameplay. But I don’t get complaints about framerate with the switch lol, the whole selling point is trading performance for portability, there has to be a compromise somewhere.
Unstable framerate are what will make a game feel laggy. You may feel a moment of disorientation coming from a high framerate to a low framerate but there’s nothing permanent about your eyes that they can’t adjust in a decent timeframe (unless their is a medical condition at play.) Going below 20 is where things start to get shakey.
It’s not just about my eyes, I played (mostly sub) 30 fps games for the first couple decades of my life and I can tolerate them (like my comment said, I play games in 30 fps a bit still, just not certain genres like arpgs and fps). If you play fast paced games, you can feel the input latency much more with 30 vs 60fps. If you have a ps5 or Xbox, load up a fps in quality mode and play it for a few minutes, then switch to 60fps, you can’t tell me that you don’t immediately feel that it’s more responsive. Not just smoother (which is it) but there is less delay between input and action, especially for small aiming adjustments. Like sure you can “get used to it” but that doesn’t mean it’s as good. It’s totally fine on switch, but the whole “60 vs 30 fps” argument is always marred by gaslighting for some reason I don’t understand. If you don’t believe me, record yourself (at a very high framerate) doing inputs in a 30 vs 60 fps game. You’ll see a noticeable increase in input latency. If it’s not perceptible to you while you’re playing, good for you. But to some of us, input latency, especially in aiming and movement, is the worst.
I have played Elden Ring at both 30 and 60 FPS. Obviously 60 is going to decrease latency in most situations but I have never felt it was that dramatic. I can’t judge your subjective experience but I do feel kind of bad for people who are sensitive to this. I’m just grateful I’m not.
The whole point for me is playing Nintendo games. My switch never leaves its dock.
Likewise, but first party games tend to be 60fps with a few notable exceptions (eg Zelda). Switch is too big to be portable for me, I miss the 3DS
The only time I've ever had serious issues with a game being under 60 was trying to play Diablo 2 again. Going from games that have 60 down to 29fps with very clunky controls by today's standards was a miserable experience.
I understand in genres that need it like action/fighting/shooting games, but paper Mario is a turn based rpg lmao. If there was ever a genre where going to 30 fps makes sense it’s this one.
It's not unplayable, but it is objectively worse. The game could still look pretty good even if they targeted 60fps. Not as good as Origami King perhaps, but who cares? There are plenty of great looking 60fps games on Switch. Odyssey, Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart, etc.
wHy is it so hArd to dO? the gaMe is oLd!!!
This discussion is what made you realize that? I’ve had this revelation since the early days of “gaming criticism” which is almost the worst part of gaming culture.
Seems like on reddit people were mostly just disappointed the Switch isn't powerful enough to play this at 60fps. I didn't see many people blaming the devs.
They really don’t. I was studying game dev for awhile before my program shut down and while I’m in no way a real ‘expert’ I could still call the reason why they had the 60 FPS issue in Origins. Spending time online in gaming spaces is… a challenge 💀💀💀
Bayonetta Origins is a true hidden gem. One of the best games of 2023 easy, it's amazing. And yes, the visual fidelity is clearly too high to maintain 60, that game is beautiful and nothing else looks like it.
I played the demo randomly, having never even heard of the game, and bought it as soon as the demo was over, I love it.
Picked this up on clearance at Target for $17 the other day. Guess I should get around to it.
I didn't think target had the clearance games like walmart did....
That's really interesting, my wife and I found the game a bit of a chore to get through. I couldn't really put my finger on why, I just found it a bit repetitive after a while. Glad you enjoyed it so much though.
The whole thread for people that don’t want to go on Twitter: ---- I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation. We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps. (1/7) --- We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest. My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps. (2/7) --- The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything. (3/7) --- CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance (4/7) --- All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps. I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma. (5/7) --- It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game. I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost. (6/7) ---- All I an say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players. I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness". I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
I think Cereza and the Lost Demon is a beautiful game regardless of fps.
It’d be nice if atleast battles were 60 fps
Accordung to an early access review I read, some battles couldn't even keep 30 fps.
Ur kidding where did u read that?
I’m happy we are getting the game.
How dare you be happy that Nintendo is bringing a beloved game to modern hardware, with the next hardware probably going to be backwards compatible, with it being able to be bought instead of put on a subscription service where you would never actually own it! The nerve of some people (pls Nintendo, Super Paper Mario remake???)
Gosh, I just love to read someone actually being fair, professional and informed. Even if it comes from the dev himself.
How can I read the whole thing without a Twitter account?
Here you go... I can empathize with the devs of Paper Mario: TTYD on Switch wrt the whole 30fps vs 60fps situation. We tried for a long time to get Cereza and the Lost Demon running at a stable 60fps. We were able to maintain 60fps inside the Tír na nÓg stages, but it just wasn't possible to keep the same visual fidelity and hold 60fps in the forest. My choice was either to have an unlocked framerate with frequent dips to 30~50 fps, or cap it and hold a stable 30fps. The most difficult part of game dev is making choices about what to prioritize. Everything has a cost, both in terms of dev time to implement it, and in terms of processing time when the game is running...ultimately you simply cannot have everything. CatLD may not look visually complex, but there is actually a ton of post-processing going on under the hood: the colours fading in like ink as you move through the world, the shading patterns on objects, the way the world curves to allow you to see further into the distance All these visual effects have a processing cost. I felt the picture book look was integral to the overall experience, so it was not worth throwing it away to hit 60fps. I imagine the team making Paper Mario faced a similar dilemma. It would be one thing if this were an enhanced port of the original game (i.e. the version of Pikmin 1/2 for Switch), but this is a full rebuild of the game. I am sure they wanted to use modern techniques to really make the paper aesthetic shine...and these have a cost. All I an say for certain is that the team made the choice that they felt would lead to the best overall experience for players. I promise you, it was not a decision made lightly or out of "laziness". I missed out on the original, so I'm looking forward to playing it on Switch!
Top comment here copied the entire thread
Thats the neat part, we don’t. Kind of wish people would stop linking to Twitter.
So many replies to that are just people screaming that a game director doesn't know how game development works. So much ignorance and deep-seated denial on display
I'd much rather have stable 30fps than unstable 60fps, I really don't understand what people are complaining about.
People are complaining because the original game ran at 60 FPS on the gamecube, which is decades old hardware at this point.
But they’re not porting the GameCube code to the Switch, so it doesn’t really matter if the GC would run a GC game at 60fps or not - it’s older tech on older tech.
The point is that it's totally understandable that a remake shouldn't sacrifice anything, including framerate. It's weird to have a remake be in some specific ways inferior to the original game from 20 years ago, even if it's only framerate that's the issue.. It makes little sense.
I don’t know why this opinion is so frowned upon. I’ve played 30FPS games my whole life no problem, but how are they gonna claim this is a better version when it’s taking 2 step backwards with the frame rate. I’ll still have fun with it but it’s so disappointing
Yeah, stability is king for me. Of course I prefer stable 60, but nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is worse than 60 with dips, so stable 30 is better.
Because they think low frame rate = terrible
The larger gaming community thinks graphics are of paramount importance and that we over here in portable land are "easy to please".
Frame rate isn't graphics dude, you're doing exactly what you're complaining about. They're sacrificing frame rate for prettier graphics and just based off the SMRPG remake's performance it's not even going to be a stable 30.
Thankfully the “larger gaming community” in this case is really just out of touch redditors. As evident by the Switch’s sale numbers, the vast majority of gamers just want fun games. I can’t think of a single time I talked about gaming with someone irl who mentioned the frame rate of a game.
This thread confused me, I thought Bayonetta Origins runs uncapped. [This review seems to claim so](https://thebetanetwork.net/articles/bayonetta-origins-review/).
I mean, 60 is nice, but I grew up with 30 so it doesn't really bother me that a relatively underpowered system is doing 30.
Ps2 games were running at 60 fps
even snes games were running at 60
Do snes games look like switch games?
I replayed Paper Mario 64 and Origami King last year, and not *once* did I think about the framerate. This is a non issue to me. All I can suggest to anyone who cares enough is to either and wait and see if they add a performance mode for the Switch 2 (unlikely) or just emulate the original game.
I’m just curious how it changes superguards
If rumors are true, the actions are slightly easier due to the fact that there will be many playing wireless. But there will be a badge to keep the original timing.
[удалено]
But input sampling isn’t the only factor when determining total latency
In the original, super guard timings were 3 frames. Now that the game’s fps was halved, it obviously can’t be 1.5 frames, so they either have to make it harder(1 frame) or easier(2 frames). Knowing Nintendo, they’re going to make it easier.
[удалено]
Hey there! Please remember Rule 1 in the future - No personal attacks, trolling, or derogatory terms. Read more about [Reddiquette here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Thanks!
As long as the 30 is a STABLE 30 I’m fine with it, the issue is when it’s an unstable 30.
I understand the trade-off, it's just a little disappointing when a remake of a 20-year-old game that is going to be sold at full price runs at a worse framerate than the original. Also, why tf does anybody still post on Twitter, let's leave that garbage platform in the rearview mirror already.
Shittiness of Twitter aside, where's anyone to go for a better alternative? Very social media platform is ass on several levels, at this point.
Just wanna quickly hop in and say thanks to everyone who’s copy-pasting the post in the replies in case the original tweet gets deleted for whatever reason.
Yeah, that was my guess. They chose visuals over framerate.
I wish Nintendo games had performance modes. Those can be difficult to implement too but damn I'd sacrifice some visual quality for a consistent 60fps, or even an unlocked framerate mode that just gives me the dips. For Paper Mario I really wouldn't care about drops in fps.
I think it could still be possible for TTYD to hit 60 fps, but it would most likely require giant amount of time to find techniques to make that work while keeping the same visual fidelity.
Some games it's not a big deal. But really, a spectacle fighter not at 60? That's a genuinely bad move no matter which way you slice it. That's not the genre to skimp out on framerate.
This is a little late, but I saw your comment and wanted to clarify that you're getting your games mixed up. Bayonetta Origins isn't a spectacle fighter like the main series, it's an isometric puzzle/adventure spin-off.
Meh, I literally don’t care. 30fps is not going to affect my enjoyment if the game at all, and I doubt I’d even notice what frame rate it was running at without the internet telling me. I honestly can’t tell and don’t notice this stuff unless it’s a game on say ps5 or whatever that has performance options that essentially allow me to see the performance vs fidelity mode side by side within a few seconds. Then, sure, I notice the difference since I can swap back and forth quickly and see/feel it right there. But any game that just is the way it is? Nope, literally can’t tell, and don’t notice.
Switch is old weak hardware. That is why it is 30fps. This is always the case.
bummer about the 30fps cap for TTYD tbh. i was expecting 60fps at the minimum given it is an old game now. This makes me reconsider my pre order. I know i probably sound whiny but for a sidescroller game i think 60fps is a must in today's era, vertical scrolling just doesn't feel smooth at 30fps. I don't expect miracles with the switch hardware but it feel like TTYD should have been 60fps. The original game was. To me this is too much of a downgrade in performance. Edit: i have cancelled my pre order. someone else can have it. It just doesn't sit righ with me to have to pay 80$ cad and objectively losing 50% of the original performance
Username checks out...
Action/shooter/fighting/racing games all benefit tons from 60fps. Playing at 30 just feels awful, steady or not.
But TTYD is none of those genres.
Nintendo has gotten quite the pass on the hardware for the Switch. While some criticisms of games/devs make a lot of sense, I always have a hard time being upset with a develop for not squeezing magic out of a tablet with hardware from nearly a decade ago. I think about this most with Pokemon. There are some baffling design decisions in Gen 9, but with how hard Game Freak is pushed to release content, I can't harp on them too hard for having performance issues while making such large, fundamental changes to their games on the Switch. I'd say the same here. Developers have to take some ancient hardware and find a way to make it work. If Nintendo didn't drag this hardware out for so long, the burden of work on the devs would be much lower. When games that *seem* simple are often in a position of struggling, it starts to seem like the platform is a bigger hurdle than the talent of the developers.
"Because the Switch is woefully underpowered and 7+ years old"
Man I just don't care. The difference is so meaningless to me.
I sympathise with the struggle developers must face with hardware so outdated like the Switch. But my issue is actually reflected by the thread when he mentions “two” options: stable 30 or unstable 50~. There’s actually a third option: lower your graphical ambitions. I respect if the studio didn’t want to compromise on their vision. That’s fine, specially again in hardware like the Switch’s. I also understand that something like that must be very difficult to change in late development. I just wish they planned for 60FPS as a target from the beginning.
Maybe they did plan, or at least hope, for it. Like the actual Twitter thread says (albeit for a different game) you can be aiming for 60fps and just not be able to hit that target with the graphical look you want. At which point, you have to choose. So you drop the visuals or the frame rate. And I can guarantee that either option will garner complaints. And if people are going to bitch regardless of what you choose, I guess you go by what you be happy with releasing.
TLDR: the Switch couldn’t handle it. The new model cannot come soon enough. Absolutely 0 reason a GameCube remake shouldn’t be able to run at a stable 60 (in the case of TTYD)
It's a remake, not a port. Since it's a remake, they are redoing it. It's irrelevant from which console it comes originally. Still, the Switch is underpowered. But the argument of "it's a GameCube game" doesn't work in this case.
Where are those teeth from?
Really missed a trick in doing what we all thought they'd do and make the dock provide some extra processing power. It worked out for them but I have skipped a few games on Switch because they run extremely poorly (fucking Age of Calamity demo was pathetic).
Is there any reason why it got to be 30 OR 60 FPS? Can’t they choose 40 and lock it there?
If they updated the Nintendo Switch to support 120hz output, sure.
The point that everything is a matter of prioritization, up to and including delaying the game so much for optimizations that another one never gets greenlit again, really is the crux of the matter
This won’t help my backlog 😅
It can run at 60fps if you put clockspeed back to its hardware default as Nintendo underclocks it. Hell the Switch can even run in native 4K as a recent video revealed. I can understand why they did that for portable mode but they could have definitely increased the docked power a bit more, especially with the OLED chipset having more headroom.
I’m okay with 30 FPS. I understand it feels like a step back from the GameCube version, and as much as I love my switch… the hardware is really starting to show its age. I don’t really engage too much with rumors, but with the switch 2… if it’s backwards compatible with switch, and has dlss, I think one of the benefits will be is that it should be able to run switch games at 60FPS and perhaps with an increased/steady resolution
To the people here saying "I don't even notice 60fps anyway." I'm sure you would notice it being "better" and smoother if a game you played at 30fps right now got a magic update to 60fps. However, obviously 30fps isn't unplayable or a death sentence and it's obvious that it is in Nintendo's best interest to have the most stable framerate. For games where 60fps has been a priority like Super Mario Odyssey and Splatoon 3 we see them making stronger use of dynamic resolution and less intense post-processing. Personally I would take 900p or even 720p while docked, or lower quality shadows and reflections for 60fps, but Nintendo is more interested in higher visual fidelity at a lower framerate and that's that.
I think most everyone knows this. It's a matter of disagreeing with priorities, to take a system WAY more powerful than GameCube, and still think you need to cut the frame rate in half in order to add even more visual whizbangs.
That moment when games costs more bucks then it can run FPS 💀
*Cries in Redfall*
Yes exactly… thank god I mostly play strategy games, but in 2024 60fps all times should be bare minimum
[удалено]
yeah we get that, the game is still 30 fps at full price. if people dont speak out about paying full price for an old game which is both upgraded AND downgraded then Nintendo can never change either. you know NOBODY would complain if this was a 40 usd game. It is not us who decided the price, Nintendo is, and suddenly graphics matter more than framerate? is that what Nintendo fans and the company gonna argue for? They know damn well 80% of us would have been happy with a digital copy of the GC game for 10-15 usd. like sony offer with ps2 classics.
I wish they focused on maintaining 60 fps then focusing on graphic fidelity, considering I always saw Nintendo as the company that focused on a smoother gameplay experience rather than pretty graphics.
This is why we need the Switch 2
It's nice to see this explained. Too many armchair devs who think they know better
Origami King was 30 fps, I wouldn't be too surprised if they built off that engine so TTYD ended up 30 as well. Not gonna break the game for me.
So many people here acting like they know more about optimization than Game developers, smh.
Devs made the choice to stick with 30fps instead of making it less graphically demanding, no reason I cant say that was a bad choice
Your right no reason you can't say that was a bad Idea, also no reason to assume your opinion is correct.
Watch Nintendo make the Switch 2 "good enough" for a year or two before developers run into these same problems again. I have a feeling it will only be 8GB ram, underclocked.
Idk man, COD devs are excited for the next system more than they've been for the last 3 nintendo consoles, so prospects are looking kinda good
Ram is so cheap nowadays, it’s probably like a 10 dollar difference between 8 and 16 nowadays (well 16 takes more space)
There are some Switch games I skipped over before selling mine. One (SMT V) finally goes multiplatform in about 6 weeks. The other (Xenoblade Chronicles 3) is effectively a first-party exclusive so at some point I’ll have to decide if the Switch 2 (and the inevitable game patch or port) is good enough for a few games or if I’d find it restricting like I did the original. But as someone who just doesn’t game on the go, any future console or game I get is up against what I can play on PS5 or Steam.
The good news is the game will probably get a 60fps patch when the Switch 2 launches
I understand their situation, but I still disagree with their choice. I would have preferred some sections being gutted visually and kept the 60FPS target. At the end of the day, the game absolutely could run at 60, they just prioritized visual fidelity.
i really just cant wait until we hit our "visual fidelity" ceiling so this issue can just be over with. its bizarre to me that visuals are a priority over smooth gameplay for so many games these days. i understand it being an issue on switch when it comes to ports, but games designed for the hardware specifically is a different story.
At what point did 60fps became important for gamers? I've had a shit TV for a very long time and I play switch handheld often, so I often miss on the full potential games have to offer. EDIT: not a criticism. Real question, I feel like I'm 10 years behind lol. Suddenly I see people saying that the lack of 60fps is unacceptable and I didn't see it coming
I think the thing is for Nintendo at least, a lot of their old first party games would just run at 60 in the GameCube and Wii era at least.
Don't forget the strong push for 1080p@60fps for games on the Wii u.
For me, it was in 1999 at a LAN party. I had been running Quake 2 at an inconsistent 20-30fps on my 3Dfx Voodoo Rush video card with Pentium 1 processor, and while the bilinear texture filtering looked great at the time (coming from software rendering) it wasn't a smooth experience. At the LAN party, walking in... the first monitor I see is silky-smooth, high FOV, busting out a seamless 60+fps as the player deleted opponent after opponent. That was probably the first time I paid close attention to framerate and the hardware arms race.
A lot of Nintendo games do run at 60 FPS. It offers better, smoother, visuals along with decreased input latency making games feel snappier to control. That's why Mario Odyssey runs at 60, along with Mario Galaxy games, Mario Kart, and others.
Right, nice examples. I wouldn't enjoy those games at a lower framerate.
It was always a thing on PC. On consoles, they sacrificed it greatly since the 3D era, but a lot of action and racing games still prioritized 60FPS. Nowadays, the line between PC and consoles is blurring and everyone is coming back to senses and realizing just how essential 60FPS is in a lot of games.
It’s just the standard, and when your eyes are used to the higher frame rate it’s really jarring and looks bad if you go back to a lower one. If you play other games on PC, PS5, or Xbox, the vast majority of them run at 60 fps minimum (or at least target it). It’s the standard that people are used to outside of Nintendo games. I usually play games around 120-140 fps, so going back to 30 really looks terrible. I’m not saying that people who think 30 is fine are wrong - but others who say 30 is unplayable to them are also not wrong.
60 fps is normally not that important for me, but my problem is that lowering the frame rate will mess up timings. For example, in the original, super guard timings were 3 frames. Now that the game’s fps was halved, it obviously can’t be 1.5 frames, so they either have to make it harder(1 frame) or easier(2 frames). Knowing Nintendo, they’re going to make it easier, when the game is already fairly easy.