Login

RUMOR - Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition resolution details, plus more handheld footage and framerate

Do not adjust your glasses

Some new footage of Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition has come in, this time showcasing what the game looks like in handheld mode. Along with that, we also have some rumored details on the resolution for both modes.

According to leaked details, Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition has a dynamic resolution of 378-540p in handheld mode, and 540-720p when docked. It's also worth nothing that the game runs at 30 fps. To get a better idea of how those resolutions run and look, check out the video below.

Comments

Top Rated Comment

I wouldn't call this a lack of effort. These games just wouldn't be possible on the Switch hardware without these kinds of compromises. The shear size, scale, and detail of the environments are insane in the Xenoblade games. They would have to make significant visual downgrades to make this game possible at something like 1080p.

Mon May 25 20 02:12pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

That's really disappointing. As much as I loved Xenoblade Chronicles 2, I knew it was poorly optimized. The same unfortunately seems to hold true for this game. 378p at 30FPS is unacceptable on any modern system in 2020, mobile or otherwise.

Something of note is the resolution only real falls when viewing very large distances, and the areas of Xenoblade on average are just larger than in 2, so they probably still made plenty of engine improvements but just had more of a load to work with this time as well

reynard
Mon May 25 20 03:17pm
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

This, Xenoblade 1's environments (and the game as a whole) were significantly more ambitious than XB2.

It was certainly jarring when I played through it. Not that 2 lacks in content but it finds other means to get it in, I think Gormott is the largest area in the game, maybe Tantal, and it pails in comparison to Bionis Leg or Mechonis Interior.

Was hoping they would improve their tech for this. Torna did improve over XC2 a decent amount, so was hoping for this to further improve upon Torna. This handheld can basically fall below the resolution of the original.

Still excited to play it again, but a bit bummed about the lack of effort.

As I said in the above comment any improvements will probably be contending with an increased workload compared to 2

I wouldn't call this a lack of effort. These games just wouldn't be possible on the Switch hardware without these kinds of compromises. The shear size, scale, and detail of the environments are insane in the Xenoblade games. They would have to make significant visual downgrades to make this game possible at something like 1080p.

Wonder how XcX remake would run on Switch.... o_O

I mean it certainly wouldn't be a remake given that the Switch is barely more powerful than the Wii U (it is more powerful but its hard to quantify exactly how much more given they are very different pieces of hardware).

Probably would run fine given that X's geometry is surprisingly not that complex, and its texture quality could be a lot higher, so they probably would have some decent room to touch up textures or performance without remaking the game.

O I can agree on that, even though I'm no expert. But I was imagining an actual remake. Just for curiosity, really. Don't think it will ever happen, even on the Switch Next.

But if tere was to be a port it sure shuld load those textures faster than on the U. And if given a LOT of extra content I might look at it, but naaah. The gamepad was just too good. Which reminds me, I should get back to that game, but XCR is coming this Friday, so.... =/

X has too much content already it doesn't need anymore.

Loading would definitely be faster because the memory bandwidth is higher, but if given more memory (Switch offers games 3 times as much memory) they might do higher res textures, which would of course increase how much needs to be loaded at any given time so I'm not sure. Not relying on discs would definitely guarantee faster speeds for everyone though.

Remember leaving the city (forgot the name) and the textures would load for a good second or two. It helped with the patch and all, bit would be nice to have it from the get-go.

Oh that still happens. I think that was really them just ending the loading screen earlier than they should have (before all the textures were loaded) so that you could play sooner, which was more a dumb design decision than a technical issue.

Unsure we are taking about the same ting, but the patch for XCX was HUGE enough to need an external HDD. It helped a lot though.

Not going to argue if it was a bad design decision or not, since I don't have the know-how, but it helped a lot... And the more we talk about this game...

I thought you meant 2, that was my bad (Because 2 had very bad texture loading issues)

Ah, I see. Puh... I have to get back to 2 too (not sorry), really. Liked it pretty OK fro the 20-25 hours I played but hear it gets great later on.

I heard from someone else recently playing it that they found the start boring as well, I realized that unless you are already invested from the start, the game doesn't ramp up until about a third in so that checks out.

Oh I like the start. It has some great stuff going on, but in the hind of my head I was comparing it to the original and that kinda ruined it for me. I should get back to it and play it for what it is. I saw a LOT of potential in it. But it is a bit slow in the start. XcX is straight into the action kinda game.

Search

Today's VIP

nabooru's avatar
Joined: March 2012
Newbie

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!