Sonic Colors: Ultimate - HD Updates Spotlight

[User18091994]

On 7/12/2021 at 1:43 PM, NoKaine said:

You can't convince me that the Switch can't run a remastered Wii game at 60 FPS. Especially when it looks otherwise identical (as in, the Switch version is otherwise identical to the other versions).  Especially when it's not even a next-gen game. Super disappointing. 

Well, Sonic Colors Ultimate have all the textures upgraded to HD, while Zelda Skyward Sword is only rendered in HD, but all the textures are the same of the Wii version (designed for a 480p resolution).

Almost all footage Sega is showing of Colors Ultimate in these trailers are compressed and don't run at 60fps, so it doesn't make much sense to judge the game through them. I know, it's dumb. I don't know why game companies release trailers that aren't in the best quality possible

Judging by the more recent screenshots and by the few footage that was recoredered in true 60fps (such as some of the Planet Wisp gameplay), Colors Ultimate looks WAY better than the Wii version. All the textures are better, the skyboxes are much MUCH better.

Skyward Sword HD runs better on Switch because it barely have any graphics update.

 

But, well, we are in 2021. Is anyone expecting that Switch will be able to run multiplatform games in 60fps from now on?

[NoKaine]

There is no level of upgrade to the quality of textures that would make it impossible for a Switch to render a Wii game at 60FPS. Colors Ultimate isn't a breakthrough in texture quality. And like I said, the Switch version looks identical to the rest.

Lost World, on the Wii U, ran at 60FPS. Or does that have lower-quality textures than a Wii game? 

[Soniman]

45 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

There is no level of upgrade to the quality of textures that would make it impossible for a Switch to render a Wii game at 60FPS. Colors Ultimate isn't a breakthrough in texture quality. And like I said, the Switch version looks identical to the rest.

Lost World, on the Wii U, ran at 60FPS. Or does that have lower-quality textures than a Wii game? 

They simplified the artstyle in SLW and had very basic colors and simple geometry to have that run at 60fps to be fair, it's not really a game that's graphically full of detail.

[NoKaine]

1 hour ago, Soniman said:

They simplified the artstyle in SLW and had very basic colors and simple geometry to have that run at 60fps to be fair, it's not really a game that's graphically full of detail.

It can't be less intensive as Colors, which wasn't as intensive as Unleashed and Generations, and the latter can run 60FPS on a not-at-all powerful PC.

[User18091994]

43 minutes ago, NoKaine said:

It can't be less intensive as Colors, which wasn't as intensive as Unleashed and Generations, and the latter can run 60FPS on a not-at-all powerful PC.

The Nintendo Switch is weaker than a non-powerful PC. Sonic Forces runs at 30fps on Nintendo Switch. If you want games to have good performance, don't buy Nintendo consoles

[Kazhnuz]

It's not the HD texture that makes the game run at 30 FPS on the switch (or not just them). It's certainly mostly the rendering engine, and the light effects (those shit are often intensive). Maybe also how the levels are loaded. Such a port isn't just "taking the game to the new console, adding code to have the light and you have Sonic Colors Ultimate", so there are a lot of "invisible" things that can make the game run at lower FPS (and to be fair, it might be just that the game can go higher than 30FPS, but that with 30FPS they're sure that they won't get any frame drop. Or at least I hope so xD).

And "not being made for an ARM/Mobile-like architecture" is one of them. The Nintendo Switch have a radically different structure than the HD console (HD console are specialized PCs, the Nintendo Switch is a specialized tablet). The game certainly have been more fine-tuned for PC-like architectures, and then the Switch port was mostly made to be playable.

Also, IDK how much Blind Squirrel Games are known to be good at optimization, and how often they have worked with architecture's like Switch.

[Milo]

The idea of using the Switch version of Forces as a knock against the Switch's hardware capabilities seriously escapes me, knowing what's been stated about it's development and stability nearing release. It's like using the PS3 version of Bayonetta (another rushed port) as proof of the PS3 hardware being harder to program for vs. the Xbox 360 hardware.

Moreover, Forces was a port of a game made for what was then the current generation of hardware. Colors Ultimate is a port of game made for the Wii, which while released in the seventh-gen was just a few steps above the (then-)previous-gen GameCube in terms of processing power. We're also in the fifth year of the Switch hardware/specs being out in the wild, while Forces on the Switch was released during the platform's infancy. Even given the changes in lighting/rendering (which up until very recently looked like a net downgrade from the original) that might make things more intensive. The idea that they can't get Colors Ultimate to run at 60FPS on the Switch is beyond me, personally.

It would be like if Tantalus, when hired, was unable to get the Switch version of Sonic Mania running at 60FPS. You're working with a game that runs on toaster-level hardware at this point.

[Bobnik]

7 hours ago, Milo said:

It's like using the PS3 version of Bayonetta (another rushed port) as proof of the PS3 hardware being harder to program for vs. the Xbox 360 hardware.

While it was indeed a rushed port, it was in part to how it was difficult to program for the console. So, retroactively, it is sort of a proof after all.

As for the whole Colors not running at 30 on Switch - I bet it's many different factors at play. The new lighting engine (or Godot in general) might be just unoptimized for the console, the team has a lack of experience with working on Switch ports, again, the difference between working on 1 SKU as a 1st party company and 4 as a 3rd party company looking at you people who love comparing this to SSHD and thinking it's valid when it's really not, the fact that they probably can't use the old lighting since it's apparently allegedly something proprietary and only works on Wii, the hardware still being too weak to make the game run at stable 60 (stable being the keyword here), etc.

I'm not excusing the company on not making the game run at 60, they definitely should've found better solutions, but saying that it's "baffling" to not having Colors run at 60 on a platform that can't even run most of the games at stable 30 only because "Skyward Sword HD can" (which I wouldn't be surprised if it has framerate drops as well) is disingenuous and shortsighted I feel like.

[Sonikko]

8 hours ago, Milo said:

The idea of using the Switch version of Forces as a knock against the Switch's hardware capabilities seriously escapes me, knowing what's been stated about it's development and stability nearing release. It's like using the PS3 version of Bayonetta (another rushed port) as proof of the PS3 hardware being harder to program for vs. the Xbox 360 hardware.

Moreover, Forces was a port of a game made for what was then the current generation of hardware. Colors Ultimate is a port of game made for the Wii, which while released in the seventh-gen was just a few steps above the (then-)previous-gen GameCube in terms of processing power. We're also in the fifth year of the Switch hardware/specs being out in the wild, while Forces on the Switch was released during the platform's infancy. Even given the changes in lighting/rendering (which up until very recently looked like a net downgrade from the original) that might make things more intensive. The idea that they can't get Colors Ultimate to run at 60FPS on the Switch is beyond me, personally.

It would be like if Tantalus, when hired, was unable to get the Switch version of Sonic Mania running at 60FPS. You're working with a game that runs on toaster-level hardware at this point.

If they actually used Godot as an engine to port the game over, that engine has no documentation nor support for consoles, so they either had to port it themselves (like Big Red Button did for Rise of Lyrics and Cryengine), or they had to license the port process to someone else.

Either way, it's kind of on them for using Godot in the first place, if they actually did so like the pre-release leaked portfolio material seems to suggest.

Pretty sure the game would've ran at a smooth 60fps if they used any other engine to actually port it over, like say, Unity like Sega did for SMB Banana Blitz HD.

It's probably a matter of the engine not being optimized for consoles, so while the XBox One and PS4 manage to brute force through the lack of optimization, the weaker Switch hardware just can't do it.

And it's not the Switch's fault, it's the devs' for choosing that engine in the first place.

Colours should run at 60fps on Switch like any other Wii port, native (Skyward Sword, De Blob 1 and 2) or emulated (Galaxy), that we have, especially considering it looks not great.

[Milo]

3 hours ago, Bobnik said:

While it was indeed a rushed port, it was in part to how it was difficult to program for the console. So, retroactively, it is sort of a proof after all.

My point there is that there are other examples you can use if you wanted to highlight the weakness, complexity, or other problems with the hardware itself. Go use something such as Skyrim for PS3 or Bloodstained on Switch if you want to make that argument.

An (unplanned) port of a game that was started in late development isn’t the best example to use, given the stated additional factors at play that go beyond the hardware.

[User18091994]

On 7/15/2021 at 12:11 AM, Milo said:

The idea of using the Switch version of Forces as a knock against the Switch's hardware capabilities seriously escapes me, knowing what's been stated about it's development and stability nearing release. It's like using the PS3 version of Bayonetta (another rushed port) as proof of the PS3 hardware being harder to program for vs. the Xbox 360 hardware.

Moreover, Forces was a port of a game made for what was then the current generation of hardware. Colors Ultimate is a port of game made for the Wii, which while released in the seventh-gen was just a few steps above the (then-)previous-gen GameCube in terms of processing power. We're also in the fifth year of the Switch hardware/specs being out in the wild, while Forces on the Switch was released during the platform's infancy. Even given the changes in lighting/rendering (which up until very recently looked like a net downgrade from the original) that might make things more intensive. The idea that they can't get Colors Ultimate to run at 60FPS on the Switch is beyond me, personally.

It would be like if Tantalus, when hired, was unable to get the Switch version of Sonic Mania running at 60FPS. You're working with a game that runs on toaster-level hardware at this point.

That doesn't make any sense. The PS3 version of Bayonetta has severe performance issues, the Nintendo Switch version of Sonic Forces doesn't. The game runs just fine, doesn't have issues with bugs or long loading screens, is as polished as the PS4 and the Xbox versions. The only difference is that it runs in 30fps and has lower quality textures because of the Nintendo Switch's limitations.

Sonic Colors Ultimate isn't the same game. It is being rendered in way higher resolution, all the textures are being upgraded and even the game is being ported to another engine.

Nintendo remastered Zelda Wind Waker and Twilight Princess in HD for the Wii U and both remastered versions runs at 30fps (and even have a few drops). Why wasn't the Wii U capable of running Game Cube games in 60fps? Because they aren't the same games.

Skyward Sword HD is running at 60fps because it didn't have visual upgrades. They slightly changed a few models, but that's it, the textures are all the same. Some people say it's even being emulated like Mario Galaxy from the 3D All Star Collection is. 

[Sonikko]

28 minutes ago, Raphael Martins said:

Skyward Sword HD is running at 60fps because it didn't have visual upgrades. They slightly changed a few models, but that's it, the textures are all the same. Some people say it's even being emulated like Mario Galaxy from the 3D All Star Collection is. 

Idk if the claim about it being emulation is true, but if it were, it'd be even more impressive for it to be 60fps because emulation is way more taxing than native code for the CPU, so that kinda defeats your point, as native code should be fairly easier to run, so SS being emulated and 60fps still puts Ultimate to shame.

[User18091994]

11 minutes ago, Sonikko said:

Idk if the claim about it being emulation is true, but if it were, it'd be even more impressive for it to be 60fps because emulation is way more taxing than native code for the CPU, so that kinda defeats your point, as native code should be fairly easier to run, so SS being emulated and 60fps still puts Ultimate to shame.

Emulation is usually more demanding because the emulators use reverse engineering. Since Nintendo is the owner of Nintendo Wii's source code, their official emulator is much more optimized.

EDIT:

 

BUT, I'm not saying the game is being emulated and I don't even believe in these claims. I only think it doesn't make sense to expect Nintendo Switch should be able to run Colors Ultimate because is a Wii game when clearly this isn't the case. It's a new version that's more demanding, even though some people in the fanbase aren't happy with some visual changes they are doing. This doesn't change the fact the game is more demanding for the hardware than the Wii original.

Again, Zelda Wind Waker didn't run at 60fps on the Wii U remastered.

 

[Kazhnuz]

What makes emulator more demanding is that there is always an overhead when you try creating the behavior of a machine on another machines. It'll never be 1:1 as fast as simply running code on the base machine. Most often, what is demanding is the conversion between binary code. Sometimes, improving the emulation will even make the emulator more demanding, because it'll use less shortcuts.

IIRC, Mario Galaxy is not 100% normal emulation, I think I've read that most of the code have been recompiled for ARM, and it's some parts that are emulated. It's some sort of in-between (which is an interesting way to do it, to be frank). So if that's right, they have removed one of the possible overhead, and a strong one (because Wii use a PowerPC processor, while the Switch use an ARM processor)

If they use the same technic for Zelda Skyward Sword, I'm not that surprised about the 60 FPS. And if they don't use it, I'm even less surprised by 60 FPS : the game have been made with Switch hardware in mind, and usually Nintendo know well their hardware. So I'm not surprised that Blind Squirrel Games, that seems to have made most often done HD Console/PC ports do something that's less optimized for Nintendo hardware than Nintendo XD

[Milo]

5 hours ago, Raphael Martins said:

That doesn't make any sense. The PS3 version of Bayonetta has severe performance issues, the Nintendo Switch version of Sonic Forces doesn't. The game runs just fine, doesn't have issues with bugs or long loading screens, is as polished as the PS4 and the Xbox versions. The only difference is that it runs in 30fps and has lower quality textures because of the Nintendo Switch's limitations.

Not to be rude, but it feels like you completely misread my post. I didn't bring up the PS3 version of Bayonetta to compare the quality of the port. I was comparing the reason of using it as a example to demonstrate problems with the hardware.

You used the Switch version of Forces as an example of the Switch's lack of power. I replied that it wasn't the best example to use because it was a version of Forces that started development well after the other versions and near the game's intended release. It was such a hastily-done and troubled port that Sonic Team were explicit in stating they weren't sure if they would get it out in time for the game's release, and hands-on previews as late as September (two months before release) were criticizing it as having terrible performance issues.

Where I brought up the Bayonetta comparison was that it would be like using the PS3 port (which as noted, had severe performance issues) as an example of the PS3's hardware being hard to program for. This is despite that version also being made late in the game's development, and on top of that wasn't even a port the developers ever intended to make from the beginning.

As I clarified earlier in my response to Bobnik, there's additional factors in play that aren't related to the hardware that contributed to the reason the port turned out as it did, for both the Bayonetta port and the Forces port. You want to use a game to showcase the Switch's lack of power parity? There's other, better examples to use where you can cite the hardware as the only/main issue. I previously listed the Bloodstained release on Switch as one.

[User18091994]

On 7/16/2021 at 10:47 AM, Milo said:

Not to be rude, but it feels like you completely misread my post. I didn't bring up the PS3 version of Bayonetta to compare the quality of the port. I was comparing the reason of using it as a example to demonstrate problems with the hardware.

You used the Switch version of Forces as an example of the Switch's lack of power. I replied that it wasn't the best example to use because it was a version of Forces that started development well after the other versions and near the game's intended release. It was such a hastily-done and troubled port that Sonic Team were explicit in stating they weren't sure if they would get it out in time for the game's release, and hands-on previews as late as September (two months before release) were criticizing it as having terrible performance issues.

Where I brought up the Bayonetta comparison was that it would be like using the PS3 port (which as noted, had severe performance issues) as an example of the PS3's hardware being hard to program for. This is despite that version also being made late in the game's development, and on top of that wasn't even a port the developers ever intended to make from the beginning.

As I clarified earlier in my response to Bobnik, there's additional factors in play that aren't related to the hardware that contributed to the reason the port turned out as it did, for both the Bayonetta port and the Forces port. You want to use a game to showcase the Switch's lack of power parity? There's other, better examples to use where you can cite the hardware as the only/main issue. I previously listed the Bloodstained release on Switch as one.

A game could have a troubled development history and still came out polished. I don't think Sonic Forces port is bad, the game runs at a consistent 30 fps, is as bug free as the other console versions.

And It still doesn't make sense to say Sonic Colors Ultimate should run in 60fps on Nintendo Switch only because Skyward Sword HD runs. As I said before, SSHD barely have any upgrade to the visuals, it's almost a straight port, while Colors is having all the textures upgraded. Saying "it's just a Wii game" also doesn't make sense.

Zelda Wind Waker and Zelda Twilight Princess were GC games, but their HD versions don't run at 60fps on the Wii U. Does that mean the Wii U can't handle GC games? No, because they aren't the same games, they have HD textures, improved lightning effects, among other improvements. They are not just "GC games".

I know a lot of people don't like the Colors Ultimate changes so far, and I'm not defending them because it's not the point here, but it doesn't change the fact that the game is being upgraded, it's much more demanding to run than the original version was.

A lot of Switch multiplatform games doesn't run at 60fps, assuming every game that has lower performance on Switch is a bad port is really questionable.

[Milo]

3 hours ago, Raphael Martins said:

A game could have a troubled development history and still came out polished. I don't think Sonic Forces port is bad, the game runs at a consistent 30 fps, is as bug free as the other console versions.

*rest of post*

I haven't said anything about comparisons between Colors Ultimate and other Wii remasters on Switch at all, in any of my posts in the thread; so I really don't understand why you keep bringing those comparisons up in your replies to me. I also don't know how your takeaway from my last reply was that I was being critical of the final result that is the Switch port of Forces; the quality of the port wasn't the focus of my disagreement.

I'm gonna be honest. I'm at a loss on continuing this discussion beyond this point; because it feels like you're either confusing my posts with other responses people have made in the thread, or are seeing something in my posts that actually aren't there at all. It's honestly a bit annoying because I don't think I've been vague in the points I've been trying to make.