Do you think 1080p/60 fps was a good choice for this game?

[ChikoLad]

The thing that bugs me, is that the lighting and shadows are really good in some stages, but very basic in others.

I mean, compare this...

Spoiler

To this:

Spoiler

 

[R0Y]

Yeah Palutena's Temple looks like baked lighting.

 

[aBBYS]

The thing that bugs me, is that the lighting and shadows are really good in some stages, but very basic in others.

I mean, compare this...

Spoiler

To this:

Spoiler

Palutena's Temple is a lot bigger than Battlefield.

 

[R0Y]

Palutena's Temple is a lot bigger than Battlefield.

Size explains it, and excuses it, but it's still notable enough to point out.

 

[aBBYS]

Size explains it, and excuses it, but it's still notable enough to point out.

Plus most of the nice lightning on Battlefield is just the background - how much of it reflects on characters and items?

 

[ChikoLad]

Palutena's Temple is a lot bigger than Battlefield.

The actual playable terrain is hardly taxing though. Battlefield has a much more detailed and dynamic background, and higher texture quality too.

This is the only thing that bothers me about some of the stages in this game. The graphical quality is inconsistent. In Brawl, I thought pretty much every stage was of the same quality. Here, some evidently look more impressive than others.

And there is no way Palutena's Temple is more taxing than Pyrosphere, which has a really dynamic background yet still looks excellent, and is going to have a Ridley boss.

And the lighting in Battlefield DOES reflect on the characters (varies depending on the characters attire though):

Spoiler

Samus is clearly being effected. Mega Man is another perfect example.

 

[aBBYS]

The actual playable terrain is hardly taxing though. Battlefield has a much more detailed and dynamic background, and higher texture quality too.

This is the only thing that bothers me about some of the stages in this game. The graphical quality is inconsistent. In Brawl, I thought pretty much every stage was of the same quality. Here, some evidently look more impressive than others.

And there is no way Palutena's Temple is more taxing than Pyrosphere, which has a really dynamic background yet still looks excellent, and is going to have a Ridley boss.

The background in Battlefield may look nice from a distance, but how good is it up close? Is it really that high quality?

Palutena's Temple is a lot bigger than Pyrosphere, too. And Pyrosphere is one of those backgrounds which is just lifted from a Wii title, in this case Other M.

 

[Khao]

I'm guessing it just doesn't doesn't look as good because of the lack of a sun in the background.

Battlefield has it in both pictures, and it adds a lot of awesome lighting and godrays and stuff.

 

[KokiriKory]

Man, I recently got a 55" 3DTV, it's got that frame blurring feature. I hated it for movies, it destroys a certain cinematic feel to the sincerity of them.

But for video games? Hot damn, bring me the highest framerate possible, even if it means sacrificing some detail. It's all about the visual feedback. ESPECIALLY for a fast paced fighting game. I'm super excited.

 

[ChikoLad]

The background in Battlefield may look nice from a distance, but how good is it up close? Is it really that high quality?

Palutena's Temple is a lot bigger than Pyrosphere, too. And Pyrosphere is one of those backgrounds which is just lifted from a Wii title, in this case Other M.

But again, the playable area of Palutena's Temple is not a taxing job. Most of it is a slab of terrain, the rest of the models are simple. And the background has little detail. Pyrosphere isn't ripped from Other M either, they seem to have built that from the ground up. It looks so much better in Smash 4.

Really, Palutena's Temple should AT least look as good as this:

Spoiler

I'm not making a serious complaint here though, it's just something I find odd. It could simply be an issue of time and resources.

 

[Saito]

Who knows. It might have all that stuff when it gets released.

 

[aBBYS]

But again, the playable area of Palutena's Temple is not a taxing job. Most of it is a slab of terrain, the rest of the models are simple. And the background has little detail. Pyrosphere isn't ripped from Other M either, they seem to have built that from the ground up. It looks so much better in Smash 4.

Really, Palutena's Temple should AT least look as good as this:

Spoiler

I'm not making a serious complaint here though, it's just something I find odd. It could simply be an issue of time and resources.

How do you know? Bigger areas usually means less texture quality because the whole area and its different parts have to fit into the memory - a small area like Battlefield is basically just a platform hovering in mid-air.

And, minus the resolution, I don't think Pyrosphere looks better here than it did in Other M.

 

[DaDavid]

Pyrosphere looks incredible compared to Other M, especially if we're talking about lighting.

Another reason for Palutena's Temple looking less wow-ful, apart from technical limitations is probably the obvious stylistic differences between the stages.

 

[Greninja]

Yes, 60fps is a great framerate for this game

 

[ChikoLad]

How do you know? Bigger areas usually means less texture quality because the whole area and its different parts have to fit into the memory - a small area like Battlefield is basically just a platform hovering in mid-air.

And, minus the resolution, I don't think Pyrosphere looks better here than it did in Other M.

Because I am doing a games' design course!

Repeat models actually don't effect performance unless they are in ridiculous quantities. It also means the memory of the stages file is smaller, as adding two of a 1MB model, for example, will only take up 1MB of memory. Add one hundred of the object? Still only 1MB.

Palutena's Temple has way more repeat models (and simpler models) than Battlefield. As a result, I find it's questionable appearance, well...questionable.

I really think it looks like this due to time constraints and nothing else.

 

[aBBYS]

Because I am doing a games' design course!

Repeat models actually don't effect performance unless they are in ridiculous quantities. It also means the memory of the stages file is smaller, as adding two of a 1MB model, for example, will only take up 1MB of memory. Add one hundred of the object? Still only 1MB.

Palutena's Temple has way more repeat models (and simpler models) than Battlefield. As a result, I find it's questionable appearance, well...questionable.

I really think it looks like this due to time constraints and nothing else.

I see! Then you know more than me.

 

[ChikoLad]

There is a possibility that the feature I described is not implemented into the games engine, but I would be really surprised if it wasn't, as it's standard, and would really benefit this kind of game, where a lot of duplicate objects and items can be in play at once.

 

[praline]

I think 1080p and 60fps is awesome.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[LF2K]

I'm happy with silky smooth 60FPS. My eyesight isn't good enough to see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

 

[aBBYS]

Yeah, pretty much.

Hey, you! Good quality CRTs are awesome!

 

[Banjodorf]

Why would there be a problem? Sounds perfect to me!

 

[aBBYS]

Why would there be a problem? Sounds perfect to me!

Some people might look at Mario Kart 8 and wish that Smash had those lightning/shadow effects and shaders. (Mario Kart 8 runs at 720p/60 fps)

 

[Banjodorf]

Some people might look at Mario Kart 8 and wish that Smash had those lightning/shadow effects and shaders. (Mario Kart 8 runs at 720p/60 fps)

Wait, so is 720 actually better than 1080? the amount of sense that makes in my head is zero, but I guess I just don't understand.

 

[aBBYS]

Wait, so is 720 actually better than 1080? the amount of sense that makes in my head is zero, but I guess I just don't understand.

No, but you can have more graphical fidelity with a lower resolution.

Smash opts for 1080p - razor sharp graphics even on a big screen.

Mario Kart opts for 720p - not quite as sharp but with additional, graphical effects.

It's all abut priority because you can never have everything.

 

[DaDavid]

Some people might look at Mario Kart 8 and wish that Smash had those lightning/shadow effects and shaders. (Mario Kart 8 runs at 720p/60 fps)

Well those people might not realize how distracting that could be in a game like Smash.

I mean they might realize it and want the flash anyway, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I just imagine that goes into why people here don't really care about it. It'd be flashy distraction and not much else in a game where things (ideally) will be moving too quickly to really appreciate ever tiny detailed shadow.

Plus, I'm not super knowledgeable in tech talk, but I feel the games are pretty difficult to compare. MK8 seems to me to have less to worry about than Smash.

 

[aBBYS]

Well those people might not realize how distracting that could be in a game like Smash.

I mean they might realize it and want the flash anyway, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I just imagine that goes into why people here don't really care about it. It'd be flashy distraction and not much else in a game where things (ideally) will be moving too quickly to really appreciate ever tiny detailed shadow.

Plus, I'm not super knowledgeable in tech talk, but I feel the games are pretty difficult to compare. MK8 seems to me to have less to worry about than Smash.

Better shaders/lightning/shadows are not a distraction - they just make the game look better.

Personally, I'm all for 1080p/60fps as I think it suits Smash because the camera is often zoomed out so far away. A higher resolution benefits of that.

 

[xxEliteAlicexx]

I'm loving the 1080p & 60fps but there honestly could have been more detail in skyloft, this is next gen Nintendo, not last gen. HOPEFULLY they fix it because some sights are just ew.

 

[DaDavid]

Better shaders/lightning/shadows are not a distraction - they just make the game look better.

Personally, I'm all for 1080p/60fps as I think it suits Smash because the camera is often zoomed out so far away. A higher resolution benefits of that.

Not a distraction as a rule, but if they're shoved in there as a mere tech-flex it could be. I mean I don't know exactly what they would do at 720p, but like you said, Smash is so zoomed it likely wouldn't matter.

And again, I think Sakurai more or less maintaining the style/feel of each series universe could also explain why some worlds are less "pretty" than others.

 

[Miles Pierre]

1080 vs 720 is actually a huge difference. Especially if you can improve graphics.

 

[xxEliteAlicexx]

Not a distraction as a rule, but if they're shoved in there as a mere tech-flex it could be. I mean I don't know exactly what they would do at 720p, but like you said, Smash is so zoomed it likely wouldn't matter.

And again, I think Sakurai more or less maintaining the style/feel of each series universe could also explain why some worlds are less "pretty" than others.

Thanks for pointing out Sakurai trying to keep the feel of worlds, I think of sonic lost worlds , the skyloft and it all makes since now.

 

[itsaxelol]

sorry but can someone tell me where its confirmed this game is 1080p? thats a huge deal and i dont remember reading it was announced anywhere. the direct didnt say that

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Hey, you! Good quality CRTs are awesome!

They aren't awesome to carry.

Good workout, though.

 

[Flaxr XIII]

I don't care much for resolution. So long as it has buttery smooth 60fps it could be 480p for all I care. (Except please no. I'm exaggerating but you get my point). 720p is fine. Whatever.

 

[aBBYS]

sorry but can someone tell me where its confirmed this game is 1080p? thats a huge deal and i dont remember reading it was announced anywhere. the direct didnt say that

The original source is Eurogamer which said "Nintendo confirmed this morning it's running at 1080". Then again, representives of Nintendo are often hired as "freelancers" and study game information before they walk out on the show floor - it has happened more than once that these representives have been wrong.

That plus the game's graphics look very tame if you compare to Mario Kart 8 and even SM3DW. Most models barely look better than they did in Brawl, and there's almost no use of shaders/lighting/shadows - look at the huge difference between this and MK8 - and MK8 is a racing game with huge environments to handle.

All this makes people strongly believe that Smash is 1080p. If it's not, then the graphics are pretty poor.

They aren't awesome to carry.

Good workout, though.

They certainly aren't. :-P My 32" CRT weights noticably more than my family's 50" LCD. XD

Though high quality CRTs with HDMI input have screen quality which is not that far away from true HD resolution, actually. Most people would be surprised how little they differ.

 

[JediLink]

60fps is imperative for gameplay reasons. Resolution is less important, but I'd still take it over poly counts. I suppose lighting is better than both, though.

 

[[TSON]]

Man, I recently got a 55" 3DTV, it's got that frame blurring feature. I hated it for movies, it destroys a certain cinematic feel to the sincerity of them.

But for video games? Hot damn, bring me the highest framerate possible, even if it means sacrificing some detail. It's all about the visual feedback. ESPECIALLY for a fast paced fighting game. I'm super excited.

That's called post processing, and it's gonna add a bunch of input delay