Video: Here's The Only Technical Analysis Of Smash Bros. Ultimate You'll Need

@AlternateButtons

There is another mistake :

they talk about the 4Gb Ram of the Switch compare to the 2Gb of the Wii U to handle textures... The problem is that the Wii U use 1 entire Gb just to run the system :/
In reality, Smash 4 Wii U runs with only 1Gb and not 2...

EDIT : the Donkey Kong fur's texture on Switch... o_O What the...
EDIT 2 : they reduced the shadows quality... hum strange...
EDIT 3 : What did they said ? Ultimate is the least responsive of all the SmashBros ever with gamecube controller ? o_O

@AlternateButtons Mistake III: They state that every mode is returning _{disregarding Home Run, Target Smash, Smash Run, Smash Tour, etc.}

@PolarExperience You're absolutely right ! :/

Mistake IV They state all the Zelda characters have been updated to their BOTW versions

@AlternateButtons Yes, they did. It’s a shame that DF made such novice mistakes in their video.

@Cobalt
"they talk about the 4Gb Ram of the Switch compare to the 2Gb of the Wii U to handle textures... The problem is that the Wii U use 1 entire Gb just to run the system"

And the Switch doesn't have any memory taken up by the OS? Sorry, but they're right to say this. The Wii U has 2GB of RAM, the Switch has 4GB, the PS4 has 8GB. To say anything else would be misleading

@skywake except that the Switch used less than 1/2 Gb for the system... Make your own calculations...

I usually love DF content but I can't believe they uploaded this. It's just one glaring mistake after another.

And after seeing this video, I clearly see Smash Ultimate like and "Enhanced port of the Wii U version" but with flaws too...

It's Super Smash Bros for Wii U"ltimate" sort of...
In contrary of all the the other Smash Bros, we can clearly see that they used all the material of the previous game on Wii U to build Ultimate.

Super Smash for Wii U was a total new work and not an enhanced port from Brawl.
Brawl was a total new work and not an enhanced port from Melee.
Melee was a total new work and not an enhanced port from Smash 64.

It's not the case for "U"ltimate...

@Cobalt
And? Did you want them to half the video going into the differences between the Switch and Wii U's OS on a video about the graphics on two games? All they were saying was that the Switch has quite a bit more RAM to play with for textures. They cited, correctly, that it has 4GB of RAM rather than the 2GB on Wii U. That's it.

Same with the people being critical of them saying the developer was HAL. Someone slipped up writing the script, it happens. But in a video talking about image quality? It doesn't really matter that much to what they're saying.

@Majora101
If you actually look at the video they link to talking about input lag they have the Pro Controller at ~6.3 frames and the GC at ~6. Most of the lag, as you'd expect, is in the actual rendering not the input device. I'm not sure what your source is I don't think DF was wrong on this point either.

How anyone starts of saying a video/article is full of mistakes but then uses it to conclude their theory is correct amazes me.

@skywake

Super Smash Bros for Wii U runs with only 1GB.
Super Smash Bros Ultimate runs with 3.5GB.

The developers have more than 3 times RAM capacity.
The way they explain that in the video is more like :
the developers have double amount of RAM, which is wrong... it's 3.5 times...

Maybe all of you should've done a video. Or did complaining on this thread take up all of your time?

I'll wait for links. And yes, this is my face as I read your comments.

All of ya'll need to take a breather.

@AlternateButtons

Think the same here !

Too many errors in this they should have gotten John Lineman to do it that guy is very through and has a lot of enthusiasm for gaming and it’s history.

@AlternateButtons To write a book report on this site about the mistakes you think they made, instead of going directy to Digital Foundry is asinine.

End of story is indeed the right call. teleports

It's a performance review. Mistakes about how many stages are included aren't really relevant. They do show that df is not the best at the details of Nintendo gaming but that doesn't mean they don't understand frame rates and textures.

@AlternateButtons

Hahahah

Way to suck the joy out of gaming guys. Good job. Same time next week?

@GrailUK
Haha, thank you, that hit the spot!

Game is awesome.

@GrailUK see you in 6 days 19 hours 24 seconds. If you’re going to call everyone back you have to get the time right.

@StuTwo Ah good catch. I'm using a Panasonic digital d310-a1g clock. The display has a refresh rate of 0.7 nanoseconds (as opposed to 0.678 nanoseconds of the the d310-a1h of course) which could lead to a massive difference in accuracy. Panasonic don't know what they are doing.

Donkey Kong's fur is the only thing that feels like went through a downgrade, though I suppose removing the textured fur in favor of a more cartoony and smoothed fur may have been an artistic decision.

Who really cares? ... It looks, plays, feels and is amazing. It's number 2 for me as Brawl is my best in series ... But it is one of the Switch best games

The title of this article is sarcasm, right?

Frankly, a DF video is there for the technical analysis. Sure they've made mistakes like stating HAL Laboratory made the game but it doesn't affect the technical analysis in any way.

At the end of the day, we watch the videos because we're curious to see how the game performs on Switch hardware, either to compare it to older versions in the series or to other games on the platform.

I think I now know Sliggy’s alternative user name

Missing a period at the end of your fourth paragraph. Another quality Liam Doolan article

Thanks for the free technical analysis, guys from Digital Foundry. I, for one, appreciate it.

Well you know what, since we are all about the little mistakes at the moment. I didn't like his tone. So there. 😏

@Cobalt @AlternateButtons
There also seems to be some confusion about what cel-shading means, and where the character designs and effects hail from.

They state that the Zelda cast has been replaced by their "cel-shaded designs from Breath of the Wild", and while Breath of the Wild was indeed cel-shaded, nobody is in Ultimate, and only Link's design is pulled from that game. Zelda's is from Link Between Worlds, and Ganondorf's is from Ocarina of Time.

Right after, it is stated that the smoke and particle effects are "pulled straight from Breath of the Wild" which is all kinds of wrong, and later on they refer to the 3DS game as "cel-shaded", when all that game does is outline the characters, rather than limit the textures to a coloring and shading style you could find on hand painted celluloid sheets from animation, which is the background for the term.

@AlternateButtons I agree but it's the Internet. There is no quality control.

@AlternateButtons what is some work that you have done? I'm sure quite a few of us would love to take a look at it since you have such high standards.

Donkey Kong's fur and the terrible 320p or whatever resolution of the Mii Fighters were the first things I noticed. They both look atrocious. Kong looks like he stepped out of an N64 game and the Mii fighters look like a fuzzy pixelated blurry mess. Amazed Nintendo would released their biggest game of the the year with such crappy graphics. Makes the whole game seem unpolished.

But the thing I'm really bummed about is that they removed the ability to play online with a CPU partner in private matches. Now they've added Squad Strike which is better but you can't play it online, which is worse. The whole online gameplay of Ultimate has been downgraded from Smash Wii U and is missing several online gameplay options.

This game is Smash for Switch and it's good, but it's hardly Ultimate by any stretch of the imagination.

Basic fact checking on the part of the content creator, in this case DF, would make the entire argument in this comment section moot. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask for. The errors don't negate the things they're right about, but they do call their overall credibility into question.

@AlternateButtons You're being absurdly critical of something you're getting for free. That's being unreasonably entitled and has nothing to with 'basic quality standards' as if you're being given bad service.

Save the whining for actual matters.

@PolarExperience I actually forgot that those game modes existed. Haha. I kinda miss them. But eh, obviously not that much considering I forgot about them.

@Cobalt let’s be honest here. Ultimate is no more a port of Smash Wii U than Wii U is a port of Brawl. True, they overhauled all the character models going into Wii U, but it still uses the exact same physics engine (Havok), has all the same modes which generally play exactly the same as their Brawl counterparts (plus a few tweaks and additions), uses pretty much all the same animations for veterans, retains a pretty good portion of Brawl’s music and stages, brought over with no graphical overhauls whatsoever (looking at you, Bridge of Eldin).

In fact Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that the biggest addition to the gameplay they could add was a Ω version of every stage. Literally everything else behaves exactly the same as Brawl, but faster, less defensive and without tripping.

In fact, Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that its flagship new mode is a mediocre board game imitation.

In fact, Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that you can only use 2 new controllers – not counting the Nintendo 3DS – to play the game.

In fact, Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that Donkey Kong’s Final Smash regains Brawl’s announcer just for that one attack, without bothering to record new lines from the new announcer.

In fact, Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that they didn’t even bother to update the Zelda characters to their most recent incarnation at the time – Skyward Sword.

In fact, Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that they couldn’t even add a new adventure mode because if they copied the last one, fans would complain that the Mii Gunner didn’t appear in the cutscenes.

In fact, Smash Wii U is so lazy in its porting job that the console it was released on was exactly the same as the last one, except with a “U” at the end of it.

Compare this to Ultimate, which completely overhauls the lighting, textures, all the stages, many animations, brings a comically huge amount of new music, makes gameplay changes to shielding, knockback, air dodging, rolling, attacking, stage hazards and even jumping, and is even nice enough to add more trees to the Bridge of Eldin.
Its flagship new mode is more an interactive gaming museum than anything else, it includes an adventure mode, allows you to use THREE new controllers, gives Link, Zelda and Ganondorf completely new models, gives Donkey Kong an entirely new Final Smash and it was released on a console without the word “Wii” in it.

Now, if you really want to know, I gotta say that Smash Ultimate looks suspiciously similar to Mario and Sonic at the Winter Olympic Games. Think about it: both games have Daisy and Shadow in them, both of them include an adventure mode starring Mario, and – believe it or not – you can use the +Control Pad to navigate the menus in both games. It’s almost as if…Sakurai spent years porting a gameboy ds game to the nintendo ipad all this time!

Some people in these comments are just insufferable... trivial babble

On to the actual meaningful discussion. The game is an insanely huge upgrade over 3DS. I remember playing Smash on 3DS. It was fun but man was it hard in that 240p and pixelated graphics. The future is now. Finally, we can play the literal console version on a handheld. It’s the day I’ve been waiting for. Not just for this game but, all games

@Cobalt
I should leave it alone but I really am confused as to how anyone one can still consider Ultimate to be a port of Smash 4. Even if they both use the same base code they have so many differences, including different menus, modes, mechanics as well a completely new single player experience.

I have been playing Smash 4 recently and got a chance to play Ultimate this weekend and they even feel and play differently from each other.

We probably just use different definitions for what is considered a "port". For instance, DKC:TF for Switch is an excellent example of a port. It is practically the same game as it's WiiU counterpart with a few minor additions. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is also an example of a port but if someone wanted to argue it to be more of a remake than a port they would have some fair points in order to make that argument.

It's almost like you want to hold to a very loose definition of what a port is in order to make arguments that ruffle the feathers of Smash Ultimate fans. Even though I wouldn't even consider Ultimate to be a remake of 4, you should try arguing that instead. You would still ruffle feathers but you wouldn't look as wrong.

Have fun!

We al knew this already

@gokev13

If you read well, I say : " A kind of enhanced port ".

Do I say : " It's a port " ? No I don't... I just try to explain that, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, Smash "U"ltimate is a game built on Smash U with extras...

To do an analogy, it like buying a house repainted it and build some extra rooms under the roof and say : " THIS is a NEW house that I build myself" LOL

But don't get me wrong, the job they've done is remarkable (The map is ugly though). I just can't stand people who deny facts...
Smash Ultimate is not built from the ground at all, it's the Wii U's skeleton with additional stuffs...

Everyone returns: Welcome back Sliggy...

@electrolite77
I have no idea who you're talking about!

@electrolite77
...or rather: It's not him. And it isn't anybody new either. It's just a lazy port.

@Cobalt The shadows resolution was a sacrifice needed to improve how it interacts with the background.

@Cobalt I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said but I still feel like you are implying that Ultimate is a port or in your own words:

I clearly see Smash Ultimate like and "Enhanced port of the Wii U version"

Yes you said "enhanced port" but that still saying it is a port. Yes at the beginning you said "like", which would mean it is similar to an "enhanced port" but not actually an "enhanced port", but you seem to argue in the rest of the comment why Ultimate is an "enhanced port". True you never actually call it a port but your comment seemed to imply it was a port. Putting enhanced in front doesn't change that in my eyes.

If I were to say, "Smash games were like enhanced racing games", I would probably need to explain further. The more I could argue that statement the more reasonably others can conclude that I actually might think Smash could be considered a racing game even if I never say it actually is a racing game. If I just clarify that it can be comparable to racing games in a few minor ways but I don't actually think it is a racing game than that should be enough to convince people I was just making a comparison.

I get that they used base code from Smash 4 but I still think it should be considered a new Smash game. It's not a port, it's not an enhanced port, it's not a remake, it's not a Smash compilation, it is a sequel, which in my eyes makes it a new Smash game.

I like the house analogy but I would see it more as using the blue prints of the last house you built to build a new house. They may have used the old base code but they seem to have scrutinized every detail, keeping what works, tweaking things, removing and adding things. I mean obviously making video games is different than building houses.

Try this analogy: Imagine you have a machine that took a blueprint that you inputted and instantly made a house appear out of nothing based on the blueprint. If you are using it to design and construct houses for people to live in the houses are going to have a lot of similar elements that are the same as to previous ones because your customers will have certain expectations. Whether you draw up new blueprints everytime or decide to considerably overhaul the last blueprint you made in order to save time, the output would still be considered a new house design because even if you didn't start from scratch the end result is still quite different. If you made a house that was popular but had to make a few slight updates because of changing tastes in the future, it could be argued that you really didn't design a new house.

Anyways that's how I see it. I guess you are using the term "enhanced port" to describe a game that you don't think fits into any other category. I personally don't think the term accurately describes what Smash Ultimate is though.

Have a good day.

@gokev13

I understand what you mean and I'm half ok with it but whatever...
You're a guy who take the time to explain his point of view and you stay polite all the way... I really apreciate that (it's not that common here ^^)

Kind regards dude.

@Cobalt

Thanks, I try to stay polite because at the end of the day we are all human and it doesn't really matter what Smash Ultimate is. All I know is that what I have seen and experienced so far, I cannot wait to spend more time with it.

See you in the comments of a different article.

@Cobalt
"Super Smash for Wii U was a total new work and not an enhanced port from Brawl."
I remember Smash Wii U being highly mocked for being an HD upscaling of Brawl on my former haunting grounds and it was hard to defend especially with how much it took from Brawl, more than any game in the series before it (With most of the animations for the fighters being recycled and the past stages were much more plentiful and not separated) And once people started looking around the code, it was pretty much proven that it was a port with how much was left over from Brawl still in the game code. (Even including animations that were unused in Brawl that were still unused in SWU)