Would Breath of the Wild score 99/100 on Metacritic with better graphics/performance?

Say the game managed to have a very steady 30/60fps along with clear 1080p graphics and proper anti-aliasing. Would it have scored higher? Or do graphics/performance count for nothing? Or maybe the graphics/performance were good enough to not hinder the experience in the slightest(lol Karariko Village).

I highly doubt it. The few negative reviews for the game don't seem to take issue with the game's performance as much as they do with certain design decisions. In the end, it is to be concluded that the game's performance issues simply do not impede gameplay, at least on Switch, which was the version reviewed.

There's your answer.

If game reviewers gave a crap about performance Witcher 3 on PS4 would have had a much more lower score compared to the PC version. Witcher 3 on PS4 is very laggy.

All games should score less with 30FPS.

maybe...the GS reviewers cut nintendo alot of slack for the graphical issues, especially the crazy frame rate drops.

I don't remember Fallout 4 on the PS4 getting shitty reviews because of the laggy hell it was

Haven't read or watched a single review, so not even sure what kind of gripes lead to some of the relatively lower scores. Well I heard all about Jims, but that's it lol.

But I doubt it.

Of course the game could look better, but it actually looks very nice. In some of the more confined and less visually interesting sections it becomes clear that the technical graphics are weak as fvck. Like if you're at the bottom of some barren canyon and the lighting scenario isn't an interesting one, it's gonna look like crap. But for the majority of the game it's easy on the eyes, and sometimes straight up gorgeous. It's funny because I started playing BotW coming off of Nioh. And sure, Nioh isn't a looker, but it is a PS4 game and it's hilarious how much better BotW looks in comparison.

The saving grace with the framerate issues is that they're at their worst in sections where you're not doing too much. You're usually in a quiet, dense, forested area when it starts to chug. Just passing through. Most sections of the game that demand action from the player aren't going to be littered with framerate hiccups. Personally, it's still a significant annoyance to me. 30fps already sucks, dropping below that is just gross. But it's not something that gets in the way often.

I'd love to have played this game on better hardware for a variety of reasons I've already mentioned dozens of times lol. Of course things could have been better. Dat draw distance tho. But these things rarely get in the way of the experience and I doubt they would have had any significant impact on most reviews. I mean really, this is an industry that apologizes for shit performance on the regular anyways.

It's a good thing Nintendo has an impeccable sense of art direction when it matters, their games have the capacity of looking gorgeous with the less superior graphics.

Superior graphics could always benefit but Nintendo's got bold vision nonetheless.

I was surprised just how pretty Xenoblade Chronicles was to look at after having played it, when my first impression prior was I thought it looked like an N64 game.

Yeah, crazy how people who otherwise don't care for performance or framerate suddenly remember those are important things when this game is concerned, lol

@charizard1605: I dunno, it may have scored better if nobody had noticed the occasional frame drops. If it had been totally and completely buttery smooth, like a greased hill on a cold day on the double black diamond slopes somewhere in the apps..........

I'm getting lost. But you get the idea–if it hadn't been even remotely an issue, I wonder if it may have scored better. Or maybe the issues highlighted would have stuck out more–who knows.

The durability thing is weird to me (in regards to weapons breaking). But the scaling of walls mountains and terrains is just so good.

No. It looks and runs great as is (on WiiU anyway)

You can always say "What if aspect X of game Y was slightly better, would the score be Z?"

Ultimately it doesn't matter.

The thing is, none of the negative reviews actually bring up performance, except for in passing. The negative reviews are more concerned with things like weapons breakage (which is a whole other can of worms, but suffice it to say, even a superficial understanding of how the game is designed is enough to know that this game is literally designed with that being the central mechanic for the progression curve- you're allowed to dislike it, of course, but it's not just a minor thing that could have been removed, the game literally could not exist as it does in its current form without it), or even the stamina meter. Add to that the fact that on the Switch, the slowdown isn't even all that notable (it's the worst in the Great Plateau, and after that it's mostly smooth sailing with relatively minor, if any, choppiness), and I don't think that performance was a concern for either the positive reviews or the negative ones.

@charizard1605: Yeah I get you, and I trust you on this. I don't have a switch, just been watching some of my favorite streamers on Twitch play through it. It looks like a lot of fun. This is the next Zelda I find myself itching to play (keep in mind the only Zelda I liked enough to finish (over and over and over and over again) was A Link to the Past).

But it's Bethesda and they get a free pass about that,I guess it's part of the initial experience on their games.

Time to get a Switch, maybe ;P

For 299USD–probably never. I'm a patient gamer, we don't spend money on games (except for Humble Bundles). If the Switch sees a major price drop, and my kiddos suddenly don't need my attention, then maybe I'll grab a Switch.

Probably many years from now, lest one of you benevolent GS forum denizens feels like gifting me something fancy. ;)

I doubt it the game is pretty much perfect. The days of graphics being the most important part of the game is over. Halo 5 has better graphics then Zelda and still flopped.

@musicalmac: Oh, I'm sure it'll drop in price eventually. 3DS did.

not really...score drop from what I've read seems to be from game design stuff like - breakable weapon, it breaks too quick...I sorta understand why it can be annoying for others..perhaps should have made weapon durability last longer. :P

Of course would have like better performance 30 or 60 fps constant..with no drops.. better visual would also be nice. :)

@charizard1605: But will it drop enough...–THAT is the question.

I can't believe I share a planet with people like this.

I am sure the game is awesome, but if the game ran at 60FPS it would be even better! I really wished for a day 60FPS was the standard for all games.

lol at thinking that ANY game needs over 97 MC with over 90 reviews. The main reason that some of those games that score that high on MC were at a time where there were not as many reviewers.

My guess is $250 bundle with game this year, and about 18-24 months down the line, a $200 SKU. The Switch is selling in numbers to make economies of scale kick in.

If it didn't before, why would it now?

No.

It would have scored higher and been the first >100 scoring game on Metacritic until the next Zelda game.

Is 97 just a "great" score for a game like Breath of the Wind? Why need to be 99/100?

It would change humanity.

Game plays smooth to me. Why are Hermits always blathering about graphics yet all they do is play graphical garbage like League of Legends and WoW?

These reviews are not objective so it wouldn't make a difference.

Higher than a ten? Hmmm... good question.

Edit: Awww **** nevermind, just woke up.

I do think some games with pretty graphics get a little more hyped which could sway more positive reviews. But I think Nintendo having a weak system, they need to get more creative with their games and I think they pulled it off with Zelda. I do think if it was on a more powerful system, maybe it could have added more things within the game like having proper voice acting with every character, more diverse enemies, more weapons, more armor, better puzzles, better animation, better music, just to name a few. I think they did enough but while playing the game, in the back of minds, the game could have been better if it was on a more powerful system.

Mmm, none of these things have to do with Switch/WiiU hardware limitations though.

A more powerful system would yield things like better framerate and draw distance and give more breathing room for all facets of the technical graphics (models, textures, shaders, lighting, effects). And from a gameplay standpoint, they could have gotten a bit more ambitious with the physics interactions. In short it could have been a better looking and performing game with some extra wiggle room for interaction.

-

VO is a design choice.

Plenty of weaker systems have hosted games with larger enemy, weapon, and armor variety. Just as stronger systems have hosted games with less. This is just what Nintendo decided to put into the game, not a concession made based on hardware.

Better puzzles? Hardware doesn't design puzzles.

Better music? Come on bro lol. We're not talking about chip tunes here.

Animation? Again, not even a hardware thing. The reason why animation in many games is so poor (not in BotW actually) is because animation is a damn tough skill and it's expensive as hell to do it right. It takes a lot of man hours with incredibly talented individuals to nail animation.

-

These are creative aspects that you may not like about the game, that's cool, but these things would be no different had Nintendo developed it for a PS4, or even a beastly PC.

To be fair the lack of space on the cartridge may have directly limited the amount of audio available for voice acting. The game clocks in at 13GB without full voice acting and limited music.

lol. Just because the music is subdued doesn't mean it doesn't take up space. The OST is what, a good few hours long? Looking around I'm seeing it has over 240 original tracks? Not all full length pieces of course, but still plenty of audio.

And it's not like games with tons of voice acting and music haven't fit into much smaller formats. I understand a lot of devs will go light on audio compression these days as a means to curb piracy, but we had the likes of games like MGS3 on a single DVD lol.

No, I don't believe the voice work was limited by the cartridge size.

Yes it could be swapped relatively easily. Just swap most of the weapons with consumables that are more powerful than what food can cook up. The game is entirely about resource management and separating base equipment from resources. Mechanically its equivalent the same but without the annoying breakage..

There are N64 games with a TON of voice acting, so I don't buy that one bit.

Considering that a lot of reviews mentioned it, I think it'd score a solid 98 (it's 97 at the moment).

Yeah I think the performance hits definitely impacted the scores overall. That would have gotten it to 98. I think better VO and a little less weapon breakage and a little more variation in secrets would have gotten them to 99.

98/100 is high enough.

Nintendo hasn't been about Incredible graphics for awhile now so I doubt that would have had any bearing on the score.

I think that it got this score also thanks to it's style (graphics), so that wouldn't have played any part in the scoring

@Juub1990:

The only way I see graphics and performance making a better score is if there's a definitive version of a game that was riddled with performance issues. I haven't played the new Zelda but so far, I have yet to have heard of any such performance issues with the game.

unlikely.

reviewers have, been very forgiving of performance and bugs. to be honest its not a zelda specific thing, reviewers are generally light on performance and bugs. they dont tend to be reflected in the review score. is that right? a matter of debate for another topic perhaps (for the record i think some of the score of the game should be assigned to the technical quality of a game. the state of some games at release is shocking.).

as for the graphics: again i think reviewers take a step back from the tech. at the end of the day they look at the game and ask "does it look nice?". they dont break it down into what AA its using or the resolution of the textures or the lighting detail. at the end of the day...is it nice? is that fair? should a developer who pushes the boundaries in the visual department get extra kudos? again its a debate for another topic (and for the record: no i dont think they should. as long as the end product looks nice then the visuals have served their purpose).

so its unlikely the score would have changed. zelda does have performance issues but reviewrs dont give that much heed (and other than that the game has been released in excellent condition). zelda also look nice...its a pleasent game to look at and the visuals dont hinder ones enjoyment of the game.

The game would've had better performance if Nintendo didn't cheap out on the hardware. The framerate takes a hit in the woods or grassy areas for the Switch. It'll have dropped frames and will run in slow motion at the same time.

@GameboyTroy: Very clear proof you haven't even played the game lol

No cause you would still have people complain about the Story and "How there's nothing to do in the game."

I think 97-98 metacritic is a fine place for it.

dafuq

The story criticism I can at least understand (I love it, but I know I'm in the minority).

Nothing to do in the game is just a lolworthy criticism

I just want you to know. I'm not the one saying that.

No. None of the complaints I've read about the game (albeit the few in number) have been about graphics. The framerate bothered a handful, but not many. The real gripes people had were with the exploration, the lack of diversity in the art of some of the stuff, a lack of diversity of enemies, and a weird difficulty curve that eventually the game just becomes too easy.

None of them were massive gripes about the game and almost everybody loves it. However improving graphics and performance would not address these issues and the Metacritic score would be largely the same.