Current Events > It's weird to think that in 2017, a Mario game had better graphics than Zelda

(+) Yeah! (+)

I know in fairness BotW is a port of a last gen game which was underpowered to begin with, but still funny to think this enemy was literally a boss in Mario, not Zelda lol.

Spoilers I guess?

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/309/289/345.jpg
---

Yea and it runs at a proper 60FPS

yeah, BotW is amazing but has some issues.

Like, the environment is stunning but the draw distance for everything else is atrocious. Sometimes enemies(and most animals) don't appear until you're right on top of them.
---

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Yea and it runs at a proper 60FPS

Why would you need over 30 FPS tho
---

Forlorn_Ass posted...

Why would you need over 30 FPS tho

Because 30FPS looks like shit

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Forlorn_Ass posted...

Why would you need over 30 FPS tho

Because 30FPS looks like shit

You cant notice any difference after 22 FPS. Ive tested it personally.
---

Don't get me wrong either, I really liked BotW's art style, but it's funny seeing hyper cartoony games like Mario pull off more visually impressive stuff than Zelda, which is supposed to be Nintendo's big, hardcore series.
---

BOTW solidified to me the notion that:

Art direction > graphics and textures.

The only time I noticed any visual issues in BOTW was when you got things popping in at relatively short distances, especially NPCs/monsters. Aside from that I spent most of the game feeling intensely awe-ridden at how beautiful everything was.
---

Odyssey is a gorgeous game
---

BOTW's world is a lot bigger than any one world in Odyssey
---

pauIie posted...

BOTW's world is a lot bigger than any one world in Odyssey

Nobody's saying it isn't...
---

BOTW makes me excited for BOTW2.
---

BOTW had a cartoony art-style tho

so comparing it to GTA: Mario which went for almost realistic graphics because it's set in the city is silly
---

BotW mainly got fucked over by low framerate issues in certain areas. Otherwise it wasn't an issue. For some reason though after the most recent updates the durian plateau in Faron dips below 10 fps for me pretty often... it's shitty. Other than some similar areas BotW actually looks better on average imo.
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

BOTW had a cartoony art-style tho

so comparing it to GTA: Mario which went for almost realistic graphics because it's set in the city is silly

There's only one area set in a city
---

Forlorn_Ass posted...

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Yea and it runs at a proper 60FPS

Why would you need over 30 FPS tho

60FPS is very important for fighting games and other games that require precise controls.
---

Apples and oranges, considering SMO has small, self-contained worlds with simple geometry.
---

Turbam posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

BOTW had a cartoony art-style tho

so comparing it to GTA: Mario which went for almost realistic graphics because it's set in the city is silly

There's only one area set in a city

i clearly have not played gta mario
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Apples and oranges, considering SMO has small, self-contained worlds with simple geometry.

This is also true, and actually the bird boss causes some FPS issues if memory serves correctly.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Apples and oranges, considering SMO has small, self-contained worlds with simple geometry.

I mean, maybe? But I dunno. Most given Odyssey worlds are on par with what BotW's pop in is loading onto your visible area. Not to mention most of BotW's locations are pretty barren in terms of actual characters/enemies.
---

Wait the picture in the OP is a boss in Odyssey? I played like two hours and got bored tbh. And the only bosses I fought were like straight out a Mario game; ridiculous and cartoony.

Also I never had issues with BotW graphics or running it on WiiU on a 8 year old HDTV. It's beautiful and it plays great. I couldn't feel the same for Odyssey. Same Mario formula. BotW was a Breath of the Freshness in the Zelda franchise.
---

Forlorn_Ass posted...

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Forlorn_Ass posted...

Why would you need over 30 FPS tho

Because 30FPS looks like shit

You cant notice any difference after 22 FPS. Ive tested it personally.

https://www.geeksaresexy.net/2015/06/10/15fps-vs-30fps-vs-60fps-animated-gif/

Mate if you don't recognise any difference then you need to get your eyes checked. Could be a neurological issue actually, I'm no expert.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

60FPS is very important for fighting games and other games that require precise controls.

Neither of which, frankly, describe Mario.
---

pinky0926 posted...

BOTW solidified to me the notion that:

Art direction > graphics and textures.

this has been true forever, imo

first became really apparent to me in the 16 bit era
---

Wasn't this the case with Galaxy vs. Twilight Princess? Although TP came out in 11/06 and Galaxy came out in 09/07. It was kind of a similar situation though.
---

I have two theories about zelda's graphics -

1) Miyamoto went senile and wants zelda to be cartoony now

2) The N64 was strong enough to fulfill zelda's vision of a beautiful game with a LOTR vibe, but starting with the Wii, nintendo hardware was just not powerful enough to have a game as impressive as OoT was back on its day, so Miyamoto went for the cartoon style to hide the hardware limitations

Miyamito has never cared for good graphics. He's actively worked against it actually. I'm not sure if that's relevant to this topic though.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Miyamito has never cared for good graphics. He's actively worked against it actually. I'm not sure if that's relevant to this topic though.

Yoshi's island says hi. OoT says hi.

Shuto-uke posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Miyamito has never cared for good graphics. He's actively worked against it actually. I'm not sure if that's relevant to this topic though.

Yoshi's island says hi. OoT says hi.

Yoshi 's Island is the go to case and point that I was thinking of.

Lemme see if I can find the video.
Edit: think it was this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9GpCCZ6NAE" data-time="
---

People really need to stop stroking off OoT. Anyone saying that quality of graphics are based upon some kind of "realistic" portrayal of fictional things and settings doesn't really understand the word quality. Since OoT 3D Zelda's best quality graphics to this day, standing the test of time, have really only been Windwaker. Maybe Skyward Sword, but my absolute bore with that game, I am willing to concede might be biasing my opinion. BotW too, will stand the test of time with it's quality graphics.

Zelda never will probably be Skyrim, Shadow of Mordor or Witcher. But if that is the metric for "quality" graphics than that Nintendo has successfully built a empire on "cartoony" graphics would be a legit impossibility.
---

ForestLogic posted...

pauIie posted...

BOTW's world is a lot bigger than any one world in Odyssey

Nobody's saying it isn't...

Comparison is a bit pointless to me. One is a huge open world game, the other isn't. If Mario didn't have better graphics I'd be like wtf.
---

BotW felt cheap and shitty because of the low res. Just the graphics. I still played a lot of it but it always bugged me. Undocked, I wish it was crispier, docked I wish it was 60 fps.

Skyward had the same issue but that was because it was the Wii. WW really looked lovely on the Wii U and I hope they port it to the Switch. TP not so much.
---

thanosibe posted...

Wait the picture in the OP is a boss in Odyssey? I played like two hours and got bored tbh. And the only bosses I fought were like straight out a Mario game; ridiculous and cartoony.

Yes, that's actual gameplay.

thanosibe posted...

Also I never had issues with BotW graphics or running it on WiiU on a 8 year old HDTV. It's beautiful and it plays great. I couldn't feel the same for Odyssey. Same Mario formula. BotW was a Breath of the Freshness in the Zelda franchise.

Sounds like you're just a Zelda fanboy then, tbqh. Both games were masterpieces that did great new things for their respective franchises, not one or the other.
---

Balrog0 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

BOTW solidified to me the notion that:

Art direction > graphics and textures.

this has been true forever, imo

first became really apparent to me in the 16 bit era

The switch from 2D to 3D was so ugly. Remember those early 3D RTS games? *shudder*
---

I like how vivid BotW is, but I generally find it to be flat in all other aspects. I just don't find it as visually stellar as people say it is.
---

AeroFlash15 posted...

I like how vivid BotW is, but I generally find it to be flat in all other aspects. I just don't find it as visually stellar as people say it is.

I think that's how I feel too. I looove the style, but it all looks very homogenous and melds together aside from a few areas, i.e. the place with all the autumnal trees, the jungle, the volcano area.
---

Shuto-uke posted...

I have two theories about zelda's graphics -

1) Miyamoto went senile and wants zelda to be cartoony now

2) The N64 was strong enough to fulfill zelda's vision of a beautiful game with a LOTR vibe, but starting with the Wii, nintendo hardware was just not powerful enough to have a game as impressive as OoT was back on its day, so Miyamoto went for the cartoon style to hide the hardware limitations

Or maybe they just feel that that aesthetic works best for the Zelda games.

And it does help the game age better.

Wind Waker still looks much better than Twilight Princess does.
---

ForestLogic posted...

Sounds like you're just a Zelda fanboy then, tbqh. Both games were masterpieces that did great new things for their respective franchises, not one or the other.

Nah. OoT was the first Zelda I played. I've been playing Mario since Super Mario. Something about Odyssey is just not entertaining to me. But both my boys got our money's worth playing.
---

AeroFlash15 posted...

I like how vivid BotW is, but I generally find it to be flat in all other aspects. I just don't find it as visually stellar as people say it is.

Nintendo is not being smart in regards to Zelda graphics.

Why is BoTW so much more hardware draining than SS, and why is SS so much more draining than WW?

The GC could handle WW just fine. The Switch should be able to give WW a MASSIVE graphical upgrade, but instead it struggles to handle BoTW.

Sure, there are things that BoTW does that the Wii U or Wii couldn't, such as that humongous overworld or the massive draw distance. So what? That is rarely what makes a player go "wow!". I still feel amazed by the first 2 minutes of Bioshock 1, and that is a PS3 game.

Wind Waker's overworld was a bit huge for my taste. TP's was waaaaayyy too big. We don't need such a massive overworld. We don't need that draw distance either, not that we'd notice with a smaller overworld. I'd rather have nintendo use that processing power to give us kick ass graphics.

I really liked BotW's visual direction
---

That dragon is from Mario? I wouldn't be surprised if it was originally intended for Zelda, but scrapped and reused. That thing is way too realistic looking to be a Mario dragon.

Then again, he did have a realistic T-Rex.

TBH, I prefer SMG/2's visuals over skyward sword or tp for the most part, same thing with 3D Land and ALBW, an
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Or maybe they just feel that that aesthetic works best for the Zelda games.

And it does help the game age better.

Wind Waker still looks much better than Twilight Princess does.

SS looks like ass, though. As will BotW in a few years.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Miyamito has never cared for good graphics. He's actively worked against it actually. I'm not sure if that's relevant to this topic though.

Yoshi's island says hi. OoT says hi.

Yoshi 's Island is the go to case and point that I was thinking of.

Lemme see if I can find the video.
Edit: think it was this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9GpCCZ6NAE" data-time="

Really interesting video, it's awesome, thanks.

Having said that, I loooooveee yoshi's island graphics. Even more so than DKC's. I am not sure why it needs to use the FX2 chip other than a couple special effects here and there though

pinky0926 posted...

BOTW solidified to me the notion that:

Art direction > graphics and textures.

The only time I noticed any visual issues in BOTW was when you got things popping in at relatively short distances, especially NPCs/monsters. Aside from that I spent most of the game feeling intensely awe-ridden at how beautiful everything was.

Agree. The lack of hand holding was refreshing as well.
---

I think it depends really.

The blowing grass, lighting, day/night cycles and the weather/elements system is stuff that's not really in Odyssey and a lot of that really adds a lot to the visuals in BOTW.

I think Zelda is more of a technical showcase than Odyssey if that makes sense.
---

Darmik posted...

I think it depends really.

The blowing grass, lighting, day/night cycles and the weather/elements system is stuff that's not really in Odyssey and a lot of that really adds a lot to the visuals in BOTW.

I think Zelda is more of a technical showcase than Odyssey if that makes sense.

Yes.

They're focusing on resource intensive features that are impressive from a technical standpoint, but that won't wow visually unless you know what to look for.

Other games can be more wow worthy wihout being that technically impressive

Darmik posted...

I think it depends really.

The blowing grass, lighting, day/night cycles and the weather/elements system is stuff that's not really in Odyssey and a lot of that really adds a lot to the visuals in BOTW.

I think Zelda is more of a technical showcase than Odyssey if that makes sense.

Much of the reason, I can relax and play BotW for hours and not really do anything, is how immersed I feel in the world, whether it looks as realistic as other games or not. All because of the stuff you mention. Odyssey may look "better" but it's still the same sterile 3D Mario in a different setting.
---