People do care, it's just that when it comes to Nintendo, it's apparently expected. Other native Zelda games on the previous consoles, ran poorly as well. Nintendo needs to be a triple A third party developer for other consoles, and give it up with their gimmicky hardware.

People have been saying this at least since the Gamecube era and Nintendo was already over a century old by that point. People also said that the PS2 would sink Sony because of the rocky launch and the myriad production issues they faced in the first year. And that Microsoft didn't understand this industry and that the Xbox would be a brief sojourn into it.

Suffice it to say, gamers tend to have poor crystal balls.

BOTW absolutely does not 'run poorly' or anywhere even close to it. I'm approaching 70 hours with the game and haven't come across a single performance issue.

I'm not going to argue with you. Day One reports were issues with serious frame rate drops, specifically with the docked version of the game. This has been discussed, analyzed, and recorded to death. Breath of the Wild has framerate issues.

Digital Foundry covered this extensively

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhoiGxl6bnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpqaTdflkNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFON2UON3k

Yes, it has been covered extensively, to the tune of nearly a hundred reviews, averaging to a score of 97 on a 100-point scale: http://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/the-legend-of-zelda-br...

If you're going to pretend to make authoritative statements on the basis of "it's been discussed to death", then you should say, "Breath of the Wild, whatever its issues, is one of the best games ever made".

See how unconvincing this approach is to someone who disagrees?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you giving me proof that there are no performance issues, based upon the overall metacritic scores being high? Just about every Nintendo game I can remember has had performance issues, remember the NES? "Nintendo slowdown" was part of the game play! I gave proof above, I didn't say I was authoritative. Stop your condescending attitude.

That the "it's been covered extensively, see how these random internet people have written at length about the viewpoint I agree with" line of argument goes both ways, but more against you than in favor.

The only condescending statement here is the one you made: "This has been discussed, analyzed, and recorded to death. Breath of the Wild has framerate issues."

No, that actually is a fact. With proof from multiple sources, and frame rate graphs. Until you show me otherwise, it's objectively factual. While on the other hand, game scores are ENTIRELY subjective. Of course, game scores have absolutely nothing to do with the performance issues, so I still don't understand your argument.

Next you'll tell me humans never landed on the moon. I'm done!

The framerate itself is an objective measurement, but the word "issues" is a subjective assessment.

If you want to provide facts, say what the framerate is, don't say that there are framerate issues. To continue my comparison, it is a fact that a certain reviewer assigned the game a certain score. Whether that is indicative of the quality is opinion, as are the reviews themselves.

I did say what the framerate is, right at the very root of this thread from which this all started. I'm sorry I even brought it up at this point.

What's the argument?

It can be one of the greatest games ever made by subjective and objective measures and suffer performance issues.

The only way BotW does not have performance issues is if you consider sub-30 fps acceptable.

>What's the argument?

If you can't see one, why assume one exists just out of sight?

>The only way BotW does not have performance issues is if you consider sub-30 fps acceptable.

The popularity of the game implies that most people do.

holy shit you are annoying as fuck. go back to reddit with this grade school trolling. even if you had a point it is long over shadowed by your tone and lack of reading comp.

Clearly they don't need to do that if the switch is exceeding their expectations.

I'd rather have their stuff than crappy pseudo-PCs.

So you're happier with an even crappier pseudo-pc. Got it.

No, I'm happier with a console that just does it's own thing. Nintendo doesn't build shitty watered down PCs. They just build a thing to play some games on.

That really makes no sense. Are you suggesting that because the Switch launched nearly featureless, that is POSITIVE? For less than the cost of the Switch you can buy a "shitty watered down PC", that has MUCH greater performance, plays Blu-Ray, Netflix, and whatever else you want. I understand there is hardcore Nintendo fanboyism, but come on.

Can you play it anywhere on the go? Can it play the nintendo games?

The only reason to get a console these days, besides the switch, is for the exclusivity. With the switch you also get a handheld console in addition to exclusivities.

> For less than the cost of the Switch you can buy a "shitty watered down PC", that has MUCH greater performance, plays Blu-Ray, Netflix, and whatever else you want.

Can you link me to where I can buy this other portable gaming console which apparently even has a Blu-Ray player despite the small form factor?

LOL

Lol no please. I love nintendo games, and I bought the switch for the games. If I want graphics or VR, I buy a desktop computer not a console.

The fact that it's Zelda and not some mediocre third party title is all the more concerning. First party means all the hardware nuances are pretty well known to the developers.

Except that development ostensibly originally started for WiiU in or before 2013 when the game was announced. The difference in architecture between the WiiU and Switch is significant enough to make porting it a non-trivial affair. When combined with the other evidence that the Switch was rushed to launch (e.g. lack of browser, Virtual Console, etc.) even if you consider the "hardware nuances [to be] pretty well known to the developers" it's doubtful that they had the time to work around the differences between the two platforms as well as they should have.

You do realize that other games have been in similar circumstances before, like FF7, and they have coped with it much better.

My sources all tell me it is because the hardware is woefully underpowered (I don't think I can share any details), not because the software engineers were rushed (most game development is done under what you would consider "rushed" timelines, compared to the rest of the software industry as a whole).

Yes, I do. Though I disagree that FF7 is a good example of a game in similar circumstances.

Although FF7 began life on the SNES game, both that and an N64 version were completely scrapped before work started on the PSN version. I'd submit that starting an engine from scratch is a more straightforward task than getting partially through development on one platform, then having to port the engine and ensure it works reasonably well on both the old platform and a new one.

Regardless of whether or not FF7 is a good or bad example, I agree with the general sentiment that there are other developers that have done a better job porting games across disparate platforms.

My comment was merely to point out that having knowledge of hardware nuances isn't the same as being aggressive in optimizing for those nuances.

I also don't consider a Tegra X1 to be woefully underpowered in the Switch's form factor. Given that and the other evidence of a rushed launch, it seems more likely to me that insufficient optimization is to blame.

But I look forward to additional details, post-mortems, etc. becoming available (from you and others) as NDAS and such expire.

Yes, I agree with you about FF7, and although I have more interesting things to say, I don't think I can discuss this any further, sorry.

Understandable. Any idea when this info might come out, given that folks abide by their agreements?