?>
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


NVIDIA Reveals Old GPUs Can't Handle Raytracing, UE 4.22 Brings Raytracing to Devs, and more!
Posted: Posted April 13th by mariomguy

Raytracing is a massive revolution for gaming, and the revolution is upon us! Past techniques all required rasterization, basically a cheap method of snapping bitmap data from polygons, and screen space to render the final image. The methods all required workarounds because it was impossible to get all the data you needed per pixel. But that's exactly what raytracing does! Reflections and shadows can now be captured perfectly without any compromises!
https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/11/nvidia-shows-how-much-ray-tracing-sucks-on-older-gpus/
Unfortunately, the news that Pascal GPUs will include a patch to support raytracing also comes with the news that old GPUs basically cannot handle it, and the RTX 2060 trumps all of them by comparison, including the 1080ti and newest 1660 ti. So, the future can be yours for $350. If you spent any amount of money on anything else, don't bother.
https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/unreal-engine-4-22-released
In other news, Unreal Engine launched 4.22 with early support for raytracing! Current feature set includes raytraced shadows and reflections for static meshes and many objects, and in an experimental phase GI. Currently it's not in shippable condition (still no landscape support, or subsurface scattering), but it's good enough to experiment with, provided you have the right equipment.

The future sure looks bright. Games now have the same tech rendering them as CGI movies!

There are 103 Replies
Page:
1 2 ... 10 11 Load all posts
settingsSettings

Crytek actually showed a demo a month ago of Cryengine doing Real-Time Raytracing Reflections on non-nvidia hardware and they claim it runs on most mainstream graphics cards which most are taking to mean the GTX 10 series at the very least.



Doesn't include shadows which I know Nvidia's does but honestly I think most people are far more interested in the reflections than the shadows. We've already had shadows at a good point where they're convincing enough.


Edited April 14th by Moonray

But flashy graphics aside I am pretty interested in seeing games with mechanics designed around raytracing show up. I could see a horror game designed around the use of mirrors to avoid some kind of monster/hunter working extremely well with it as you'd be able to see exactly what you should see.

Posted April 14th by Moonray

Actually, no, shadows nowadays are explicitly horrible. You either have baked shadows (low quality, horrific bake times, static), cascaded shadow maps (capture the scene several times over, still blurry, more expensive than necessary), or distance field shadows (semi-static, large memory input, unsupported on large terrains where it'd be most useful). Raytraced shadows take care of everything per-pixel for stunning quality, support fully dynamic environments, and don't require rerenders of the same scene multiple times.

If we can get to the point where raytracing can take care of shadows, reflections, AND GI, there will be nothing stopping dynamic games from being properly lit, shaded, or reflected. As of right now, fully dynamic environments are kind of impossible to work with. Even static environments with plenty of foliage are difficult to get shadowed right.

Cryengine devs make plenty of boastful comments. Even if raytraced reflections do work, the lack of shadows wouldn't be OK in most game environments.

Posted April 14th by mariomguy

What are you defining as a "dynamic" environment?


Posted April 14th by Moonray

Changing time of day, moving lights. You can't bake in something that's moving, so all the lighting calculations need to be handled dynamically. At the moment, doing this for large open worlds is very difficult. There are cons to all present solutions. With raytracing there are no cons, other than hardware support, which will soon vanish.

Posted April 14th by mariomguy

"So, the future can be yours for $350"

I'm not sure where you are seeing that price, but NVIDIA has it listed for $1200+ on their website.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shop/geforce/?page=1&limit=9&locale=en-us&gpu=RTX%%202080%%20Ti

Edited April 15th by Q
Q
 

He probably just looked at the cheapest off-brand version on amazon and cited that.

Edited April 15th by Cruinn-Annuin

I believe he was referring to the RTX2060 which is around the price (at least in the UK). He does mention the 2060 right before the price so...

Posted April 15th by Moonray

"I believe he was referring to the RTX2060 which is around the price (at least in the UK). He does mention the 2060 right before the price so..."

True, he does. Sorry, that was my bad, I read it as 2080. You can indeed get a 2060 for $350 on newegg.com
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500458&ignorebbr=1&source=region&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-Video+Card+-+Nvidia-_-N82E16814500458&gclid=Cj0KCQjw19DlBRCSARIsAOnfReiYlNks7A23cU5i4Z7t69Yle-HJawhDPYPKPOGKvv1UBnhfiu5vqDMaAogtEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Posted April 15th by Q
Q
 

Here is an NVIDIA's VP of Technical Marketing discussing raytracing in a quick 5-minute video, including how it works and why it runs so much faster on the RTX cards.
https://youtu.be/476N4KX8shA
While he didn't have enough time to explain in the video, dynamic GI is the problem of our times. In order to make a game that doesn't require any baking at all, indirect light (the light that fills the shadows of the world and illuminates interior spaces) would have to be calculated in realtime. In the past, games like The Sims drop the ball on lighting and don't even make an attempt to portray it accurately: the light is plain, flat, and simple. In the real world light bounces: a small patch of sunlight will hit a red cloth and cast red light all over. Then it will bounce off of white walls and extend further.

Along with many of the other effects he mentioned, raytracing is the only way to calculate GI properly. Cast a ray from the camera at the pixel and figure out how much light it captures. Up until now we haven't been doing that!

I am excited to see where this goes! I'm pumped up and almost getting ready to upgrade my GPU... almost.

Edited April 16th by mariomguy

This brings me to the thought of how people are always chasing the carrot of "Realistic" graphics and if they are really needed for gaming to be immersive and fun. Don't get me wrong, I love detailed graphics that are smooth and fluid, but at the same time I feel that you don't have to have ray tracing to have fun. To me I find gameplay to be the best feature of a game.

Infact, I find myself enjoying games that have low detailed graphics. I've been having a blast recently playing through Final Fantasy 7 on the Switch. Yes I feel that it is often over rated and that the graphics definitely look dated but it is still a great game with great gameplay. I'm constantly running around battling enemies and juggling Materia around to different characters to level them all up.

Then you can look at the success of the NES and SNES Classic consoles. These consoles are running games that are from the mid 1980's to the mid 1990's and only the SNES Classic has any "3D" games. But most of the games on those consoles, especially the SNES Classic, have great gameplay. It also helps that most of them have very good sprite artwork like Secret of Mana. But then you look at Star Fox and Star Fox 2 and the graphics are just terrible. All those flat jagged polygons look ugly, but those games are saved by the gameplay.

Then you have entire consoles that focus on things other than graphics such as the Switch, which offers flexibility and adaptability over graphics, even though it can still produce some good looking games. You only have to look at Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, and Smash Brothers to see how it can produce very good looking games.

So what I am getting at is that it's nice that there are companies out there trying to push the envelope of technology like this, but what is it really going to give us? Who is going to use it? Who will be able to use it? How will they use it? We have seen MANY games that have come out in the past (some very recently) touting graphical fidelity to be met with harsh criticism about poor gameplay.

SONY has said that The PS5 is to have Ray Tracing capability, so it will be interesting to see what games come out that use it, but I really think that we are at a point now where graphics aren't as much of a priority as GamePlay, which IMO is the most important part of a game.

Edited April 17th by Q
Q
 

It should have always been the most important part of a game. No point looking and sounding incredible if it plays like shit and isn't any fun.

I'm not down on tech advancement, nor am I down on realism in media. But I agree with the assessment that sometimes it seems to get too much emphasis and significance. There's something to be said about how one of the most enduring games of all time is just a bunch of blocks falling. If the game is fun, people will play it and be into it. There is a place for improved graphics, sound, and tech power, to be sure. Many of my favorite games utilize these things.

But I definitely know for myself, I don't much think about tech as much as I do about game design itself. I will be curious to see what new design elements emerge from the tech, of course. Possibilities open up with that, so that will be interesting to see.

Posted April 17th by Jet Presto

There's something to be said about how one of the most enduring games of all time is just a bunch of blocks falling


One of the most enduring games of all time doesn't have graphics.

Posted April 17th by Cruinn-Annuin

This brings me to the thought of how people are always chasing the carrot of "Realistic" graphics and if they are really needed for gaming to be immersive and fun. Don't get me wrong, I love detailed graphics that are smooth and fluid, but at the same time I feel that you don't have to have ray tracing to have fun. To me I find gameplay to be the best feature of a game.


But I definitely know for myself, I don't much think about tech as much as I do about game design itself. I will be curious to see what new design elements emerge from the tech, of course. Possibilities open up with that, so that will be interesting to see.


Yea this is what I was saying before. I am far more interested in what kind of gameplay they can pull from this than the actual visual pleasantness of it.

From a general consumer perspective raytracing is just something we will notice in games a few times and go "that looks cool" and then very quickly it'll just become this thing you don't really notice is happening. Unless they provide gameplay reasons to pay attention to it of course.

Posted April 17th by Moonray

This brings me to the thought of how people are always chasing the carrot of "Realistic" graphics and if they are really needed for gaming to be immersive and fun.

This is not just to chase some silly dream called "realism." Physically based rendering allowed objects to be shaded with full-colored reflections, giving Mario Kart 8 its great depth with its color and quality. Raytracing allows a shit ton of other things to happen that just couldn't before. There were no shadows on the grass in Breath of The Wild. Raytracing would make something like that a lot easier, to make the world feel a lot more grounded.

Then you can look at the success of the NES and SNES Classic consoles. These consoles are running games that are from the mid 1980's to the mid 1990's and only the SNES Classic has any "3D" games. But most of the games on those consoles, especially the SNES Classic, have great gameplay.

I don't think this should be a graphics VS. gameplay debate, it should be a graphics AND gameplay debate. If you wanted to change time of day on the NES, you had to change the entire sprite, so, Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest had a day/night transition that hit you like a ton of bricks. Modern games do a million hacky things to make that happen, but it never runs fast or smooth enough on lower-end hardware. Raytracing can probably make that happen. Pixel-perfect reflections, shadows, and AO are all easy to do thanks to the new RTX hardware. If Nintendo had this tech, I'd be interested to see what they do with it for Mario, Mario Kart, and Metroid Prime, all games which do their best to feature dramatic reflections.

So what I am getting at is that it's nice that there are companies out there trying to push the envelope of technology like this, but what is it really going to give us?

  • New gameplay using reflections in ways that were never possible before
  • New gameplay using dynamic GI allowing for changing time of day/dynamic terrain with impressive quality results
  • More efficient shadowing for large open worlds
  • MUCH better CGI-quality lighting for ALL, no gimmicks
  • Gorgeous volumetric shaders for flying through clouds, godlights, volumetric shadows, etc. without the old hacky methods (we may be a little bit away from some of this still)
  • And more than you can possibly imagine!

    I'm not down on tech advancement, nor am I down on realism in media. But I agree with the assessment that sometimes it seems to get too much emphasis and significance.

    I don't think you get it. This is as big as the jump from 2D to 3D: raytracing was the holy grail of 3D graphics for 5 decades, but it seemed out of reach for gaming. We've relied on rasterization since the 90s to represent 3D graphics, and this is an entirely new system based on the simple idea that everything in the world is 3D, let's do all the calculations in 3D! This opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities for new gameplay, new rendering techniques, and stuff we've never seen before that I can't even fathom. One of the tech demos had a hall of infinite mirrors. Imagine a puzzle game where you're trying to redirect light through mirrors, and you look into the mirrors and find something coming toward you. An effect like this would've been 100% impossible before. Now it runs 1080p 60f on a $350 graphics card.

  • Posted April 18th by mariomguy

    No, I get it. And as I said, I am excited to see what design elements are able to emerge in that technology.

    I just don't think that is the end all of games or game design, is all. New is interesting and exciting, but is not inherently good. There are plenty of great puzzle games on the current, or older hardware. That's all I'm saying. Still plenty of ways to design truly great games with what we have.

    Again, not down on the tech. All I'm saying is it is not the arbiter of games being well designed or not.

    Posted April 18th by Jet Presto

    Raytracing is undoubtedly a cool development, but I hope the devs utilizing it will exercise some restraint. I've seen way too many demos where just about every surface has some kind of mirror/reflection going on. It takes me right out of whatever 'realistic' graphical advances they're going for.

    Ex:



    The floor is reflective! The walls are reflective! The desk is reflective! Everything is reflective! Even the video Moonray posted leaves me with this strange feeling that the world is inexplicably covered in a thin layer of oil.

    Now granted, these are demos meant to show off what the technology is capable of. But there is a point where you've got too much of a good thing.

    Edited April 18th by Count Dooku

    This is not just to chase some silly dream called "realism." Physically based rendering allowed objects to be shaded with full-colored reflections, giving Mario Kart 8 its great depth with its color and quality. Raytracing allows a shit ton of other things to happen that just couldn't before. There were no shadows on the grass in Breath of The Wild. Raytracing would make something like that a lot easier, to make the world feel a lot more grounded.


    This is not just to chase some silly dream called "realism", [but] to make the world feel a lot more grounded.




    Posted April 18th by Cruinn-Annuin

    "This is not just to chase some silly dream called "realism." Physically based rendering allowed objects to be shaded with full-colored reflections, giving Mario Kart 8 its great depth with its color and quality. Raytracing allows a shit ton of other things to happen that just couldn't before. There were no shadows on the grass in Breath of The Wild. Raytracing would make something like that a lot easier, to make the world feel a lot more grounded. "

    Mario Kart 8 is fun becuase of the GamePlay. Yes it's nice that it has good graphics, but I can go all the way back to Mario Kart 64 and have just as much fun and it was made over 20 years ago. Also, who the hell goes outside and admires the shadows of grass? I can honestly not ever think of a time I noticed grass shadows in real life so why would I want them in a video game?

    "I don't think this should be a graphics VS. gameplay debate, it should be a graphics AND gameplay debate."

    I agree, it SHOULD be. However we are starting to see alot of games focus on either graphics or gameplay. Rarely do we get games that have a great mix of both.

    "If you wanted to change time of day on the NES, you had to change the entire sprite, so, Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest had a day/night transition that hit you like a ton of bricks. Modern games do a million hacky things to make that happen, but it never runs fast or smooth enough on lower-end hardware. Raytracing can probably make that happen. Pixel-perfect reflections, shadows, and AO are all easy to do thanks to the new RTX hardware. If Nintendo had this tech, I'd be interested to see what they do with it for Mario, Mario Kart, and Metroid Prime, all games which do their best to feature dramatic reflections."

    I agree that raytracing would make graphical effects better and easier. But we have gotten many games that can do night/day cycles just fine.

    "**New gameplay using reflections in ways that were never possible before
    **New gameplay using dynamic GI allowing for changing time of day/dynamic terrain with impressive quality results
    **More efficient shadowing for large open worlds
    **MUCH better CGI-quality lighting for ALL, no gimmicks
    **Gorgeous volumetric shaders for flying through clouds, godlights, volumetric shadows, etc. without the old hacky methods (we may be a little bit away from some of this still)
    **And more than you can possibly imagine!! "

    NONE of that actually affects gameplay. It's all window dressing; a fancier coat of paint. It's all purely cosmetic. Games have been using reflections for gameplay for years. Look at Mario 64, Duke Nukem 3D and other mid/late 1990's games.

    Everything you have said is literally what I said about chasing the Carrot of "Realistic" graphics. Reflections and better Lighting are nice to have, and sometimes can help immerse you in a game's world better, but as Moonray said people will think it's kind of cool to have at first and then forget it's even there.

    Ocarina of Time isn't remembered and cherished because of it's graphics, but because of it's gameplay and story line. Yes back in 1998 it was probably one of the best looking games around, but it's graphics were quickly out paced. Chrono Trigger is often held up as one of the best RPG's to this day despite being released on 16-bit hardware. Look at any list of the best games ever made and pretty much all the places list their top games because of GamePlay.

    Again, i'm not saying I don't like games with good graphics. When I was a kid the first thing I would do when looking at games at the store was to flip the box or case over and look at the screenshots. I had the naive notion that if the graphics didn't look good then the game wouldn't be good. It wasn't until I got older and more mature that I realized that some of the best games ever made don't have the best of graphics.

    EDIT: IGN has just posted an article about Ray Tracing, it's worth a read:
    https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/17/what-is-ray-tracing-and-should-you-care

    Edited April 18th by Q
    Q
     

    There were no shadows on the grass in Breath of The Wild. Raytracing would make something like that a lot easier, to make the world feel a lot more grounded.

    we literally going around fighting hob globins and reviving ancient spirit weapons.

    Posted April 18th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Now granted, these are demos meant to show off what the technology is capable of. But there is a point where you've got too much of a good thing.

    As you said, the purpose is to show off the technology. Initial demos are always directed to developers, not the general audience. Because perfect reflections were 100% impossible before this and it's one of the easiest things to implement with raytracing, yes, there will be many metals and slick surfaces in the early demos. But since the entire world is lit with reflections, not just shiny objects, this also means rough surfaces will have more beautiful colors. It's just much better to go straight to the obvious choice for a demo.









    Mario Kart 8 is fun becuase of the GamePlay. Yes it's nice that it has good graphics, but I can go all the way back to Mario Kart 64 and have just as much fun and it was made over 20 years ago.

    lol no.

    I agree, it SHOULD be. However we are starting to see alot of games focus on either graphics or gameplay. Rarely do we get games that have a great mix of both.

  • Mario Kart 8
  • Any Super Mario game from Galaxy and beyond
  • Unreal Tournament (I am biased and I know it)
  • Horizon Zero Dawn
  • Metroid Prime
  • Super Smash Bros
  • Marvel's Spiderman
  • God of War
  • Journey
  • Little Big Planet
  • Overwatch

    If we expand to 2D...

  • Rayman Legends
  • World of Goo
  • Dust: An Elysian Tail

    I agree, truly good games are hard to find. But they've always been hard to find, and they always will be hard to find. It's up to the developers to put gameplay first. But this tech allows us to do things we've never dreamed of.

    NONE of that actually affects gameplay. It's all window dressing; a fancier coat of paint. It's all purely cosmetic. Games have been using reflections for gameplay for years. Look at Mario 64, Duke Nukem 3D and other mid/late 1990's games.

    OK, I suppose you could always do stuff like Super Mario 64 and leave everything very generically lit. No shadows, only a blob. And just tack a whacky camera-reflected texture on an object and call that a reflection. Or you can, you know, use raytracing to make something very beautiful. If the time of day changes in a game, it should be handled beautifully. But currently, simulation games like Planet Coaster require massively powerful GPUs to run well because our current solutions for rendering dynamic objects (objects that move or can be placed in the world) is horrible.

    The point is it will be EASIER for developers to create amazing things and EASIER for computers to run it. It's the same system that Hollywood has been using for the last few decades, and a pipe dream for developers finally come to fruition. Changing time of day? No problem. Moving lights with shadows of small, thin objects? No problem. Reflections? As you can see, no problem. Virtually everything that used to be a painstaking impossibly difficult problem now has an easy and practical solution: raytrace it! So whatever game idea someone has will not be limited by graphical constraints. RTX can render infinite mirrors. Yes!

  • Posted April 19th by mariomguy

    >but I can go all the way back to Mario Kart 64 and have just as much fun and it was made over 20 years ago.


    lol no.


    Yeah, you can stop telling people what they have more or less fun with immediately. Remember this?
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150730045947/http://gtx0.com/view.php?post=93833

    Posted April 19th by Cruinn-Annuin

    "lol no. "

    Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't have just a much fun with MK64 as SMK8? Get your head out of your own ass and stop being self absorbed long enough to recognize people have different tastes then you.

    You listed a good list of games. However, some can be considered very dated by today's standards. Metroid Prime was a very good looking game back in the day, but now not so much. People talk about it's gameplay more than it's graphics.

    " It's up to the developers to put gameplay first. But this tech allows us to do things we've never dreamed of. "

    Yes it is. And it's visually/graphically for things you haven't dreamed of. Ray tracing is not going to introduce new gameplay. It will augment the current gameplay techniques that are currently out.

    "The point is it will be EASIER for developers to create amazing things and EASIER for computers to run it. It's the same system that Hollywood has been using for the last few decades, and a pipe dream for developers finally come to fruition. Changing time of day? No problem. Moving lights with shadows of small, thin objects? No problem. Reflections? As you can see, no problem. Virtually everything that used to be a painstaking impossibly difficult problem now has an easy and practical solution: raytrace it! So whatever game idea someone has will not be limited by graphical constraints. RTX can render infinite mirrors. Yes!"

    I literally said this in less words. Helps to read.

    Posted April 19th by Q
    Q
     

    I thought nintendo games are suppose to be fun

    Posted April 19th by S.o.h.
    S.o.h.
     

    Mario kart 64 isn’t fun.

    Posted April 19th by Brandy

    The most fun I've had in a long time has been with RuneScape and RS graphics look like hammered shit.

    It's literally a web browser game from 2007. But it's one of the most fun things I've ever played.

    Edited April 19th by Cruinn-Annuin

    my favorite shooter has some pretty crap graphics (2007 game babyyyyy) and I loved it.

    Posted April 19th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Yeah, you can stop telling people what they have more or less fun with immediately. Remember this?

    Back when everyone was getting sucked in the brown and bloom AAA hype train? Yeah.

    Mario Kart 64 is not as great as you remember. It was amazing for the time being the first Mario Kart in 3D to support 4-player multiplayer and analog controls, but times have changed. The item balance was atrocious, the controls were horrific, the level design far too large and forgiving, and the game's framerate dropped like crazy. You can't compare MK64 to Mario Kart 8, it's like comparing spoiled milk to a wedding cake.

    It has nothing to do with the graphics and everything to do with the game. I still think Super Mario 64 was one of the greatest Mario games of all time, and people give me crap for having reservations about newer Mario games. I can't win with you people, sometimes!

    You listed a good list of games. However, some can be considered very dated by today's standards. Metroid Prime was a very good looking game back in the day, but now not so much. People talk about it's gameplay more than it's graphics.

    Metroid Prime 3 looks and feels incredible, even today. Point is, there are a lot of games that look amazing and play amazing, too.

    Yes it is. And it's visually/graphically for things you haven't dreamed of. Ray tracing is not going to introduce new gameplay. It will augment the current gameplay techniques that are currently out.

    Not really. In order for Portal to work, it has to render the level twice: once for what you see in the initial view, and again for everything in the portal view. And because it all has to be rasterized, a lot more than what you see on the screen has to be rendered as well. That's why most of what you're seeing is BSP: it would be too difficult to render actual models several times over and maintain performance. Raytracing would help that a lot.

    I literally said this in less words. Helps to read.

    Ugh. You can't just sit there and pretend these things are easy, they're not. Raytracing is the way 3D graphics were supposed to be rendered, but up until now we couldn't do it. The best we got were small demos like this:
    http://madebyevan.com/webgl-water/ http://madebyevan.com/webgl-path-tracing/
    Nowadays, entire games are able to run better than this kind of quality.

    my favorite shooter has some pretty crap graphics (2007 game babyyyyy) and I loved it.

    My favorite shooters are Quake III: Arena and the newest Unreal Tournament.

    Posted April 19th by mariomguy

    In spite of what you claim is objectively better, it is still possible for someone to prefer or have more fun with another title that you think is inferior. Mario Kart 64 will probably always be my favorite kart racer because of who I played with at the time. I revisited it again in my college years and still had a lot of fun with it, even though my friends complained that they couldn't see anything because of the fuzzy graphics. I love the physics and feel of the game. I've played later titles including Mario Kart Wii and did not enjoy it much at all.

    "Fun" is subjective. You know this.

    Posted April 19th by Vandy

    Back when everyone was getting sucked in the brown and bloom AAA hype train? Yeah.


    Back when you blatantly made claims about what other people could find subjectively fun, you disingenuous quibbler. Why do you constantly try to warp the narrative to justify or even entirely ignore the fanboyish things that you say?

    Edited April 23rd by Cruinn-Annuin

    I don't get the obsession with Mariom tbh even if he says outlandish stuff. But fun IS subjective of course. I'm not entirely convinced he thinks he is objectively right about what is fun though, probably more with what he considers to be a GOOD game which I also disagree with since what makes a game GOOD is how fun it is but whatever.

    Fuck critics, everything is subjective. Stop letting other people tell you what you should and should not enjoy! Find out for yourself even if it's fallout 76! That is the lesson here. NOTHING is objectively bad or good when it comes to entertainment no matter what anyone claims. There is only personal opinion and nothing else matters. The only thing objective is how objectively wrong people are who think it isn't a subjective matter.

    Edited April 19th by Knuckles4099

    Metroid Prime was a very good looking game back in the day, but now not so much.


    Also hard disagree. It may not look the most "realistic" but it is still great looking and atmospheric as fuck. And it is still a fantastic first person shooter.

    Edited April 19th by Knuckles4099

    OK, so there's no such thing as objective "fun." But surely you don't mean to tell me the controls in MK 64 are better than MK 8? There's no way I'd ever be able to believe that.

    Bottom line, Raytracing is a huge jump in rendering for devs. It allows crazy awesome lighting, reflections, and effects to be handled very easily through the API and specialized hardware solutions. Stuff that used to be a pipe dream is now reality. Get ready for sheer perfection!

    Posted April 20th by mariomguy

    Here's an example of the kind of lighting I was talking about. This kind of lighting is now available for everyone to use:



    Edited April 20th by mariomguy

    “Mario Kart 64 is not as great as you remember. It was amazing for the time being the first Mario Kart in 3D to support 4-player multiplayer and analog controls, but times have changed. The item balance was atrocious, the controls were horrific, the level design far too large and forgiving, and the game's framerate dropped like crazy. You can't compare MK64 to Mario Kart 8, it's like comparing spoiled milk to a wedding cake. ”

    All of those things you said can be applied to almost any game made in that era. And never said the game was perfect, I said I could have just as much fun with it as MK8. And yes you can compare MK8 to MK64, they are literally part of the same franchise.

    “It has nothing to do with the graphics and everything to do with the game. I still think Super Mario 64 was one of the greatest Mario games of all time, and people give me crap for having reservations about newer Mario games. I can't win with you people, sometimes! ”

    How does this whole discussion not have to do with graphics when Ray Tracing is literally Graphics? The reason you can’t win with us people is that you always contradict yourself. And how are you going to compare SM64 to SM odyssey when you just said you can’t compare MK64 to MK8? This is the contradiction I’m talking about.

    “Metroid Prime 3 looks and feels incredible, even today. Point is, there are a lot of games that look amazing and play amazing, too. ”

    I never said there weren’t a lot of games that didn’t look amazing or play well. I said that compare them to today’s games and they are less realistic. Which brings me back to how developers are always chasing the carrot of realistic graphics. Doom 3 was touted as being too demanding for current hardware when it came out in 2006, but now it looks very dated.

    “Ugh. You can't just sit there and pretend these things are easy, they're not. Raytracing is the way 3D graphics were supposed to be rendered, but up until now we couldn't do it. The best we got were small demos like this: ”

    This is another example of you contradicting yourself. You literally said:

    The point is it will be EASIER for developers to create amazing things and EASIER for computers to run it.


    Who is pretending it’s easy when you are literally saying that it will be EASIER? Do you even read what you say?

    “My favorite shooters are Quake III: Arena and the newest Unreal Tournament.”



    Look how realistic that game looks lol.

    Posted April 20th by Q
    Q
     

    All of those things you said can be applied to almost any game made in that era. And never said the game was perfect, I said I could have just as much fun with it as MK8. And yes you can compare MK8 to MK64, they are literally part of the same franchise.

    Not true! Sakurai's games (Kirby Super Star, Smash Bros. series) still control well to this day. Super Mario 64 is still the king of freeform 3D platforming controls, though it might've been trumped by Spiderman.

    I tried playing Super Mario Kart again and the controls were atrocious. Same for Mario Kart 64. Mario Kart didn't really get good controls until the Gamecube title, which were further refined on the DS, Wii, and reached an apex in MK8.

    How does this whole discussion not have to do with graphics when Ray Tracing is literally Graphics?

    I was still responding to a comment about Mario Kart 64. I dislike the N64 title because of the gameplay issues, not the graphics.

    And how are you going to compare SM64 to SM odyssey when you just said you can’t compare MK64 to MK8? This is the contradiction I’m talking about.

    Technically you can compare New Super Mario Bros. with Donkey Kong, but I'm trying to make a point that the controls in one game are so far superior to the other they exist in different realms. Mario Kart 64 had passable controls, barely passable level design, and good gameplay (if you can excuse the rate drops), but Mario Kart 8 elevates it to extraordinary proportions. The controls feel outstanding, the levels are distinct and diverse with excellent flow, and the gameplay is top-of-the-line. It's hard to imagine what could make a better racing game.

    I never said there weren’t a lot of games that didn’t look amazing or play well. I said that compare them to today’s games and they are less realistic. Which brings me back to how developers are always chasing the carrot of realistic graphics.

    Everything that makes Super Mario Odyssey look beautiful is because of advancements in technology. Because new techniques like deferred and physically based rendering were developed, Nintendo used it to create Mario Kart 8's gorgeous reflections and colorful lighting system. Because of per-pixel lighting, we got Super Mario Galaxy's gorgeous rim shading. And when translucency was used in Super Mario Sunshine, for a long time that game was the high bar to beat when it came to water. Same when Super Mario 64 jumped to 3D.

    In the past, each advancement actually made some things more difficult to implement. You'd need a highly-skilled technical artist to program matrix transforms and multi-rendering just to get a shadow implemented! But with raytracing, you can just include the API in your program, check the settings, and suddenly you've got perfect shadows everywhere! The flexibility of raytracing to do things that we couldn't do before and do them well is very exciting for developers. Yes, games will look good, but we can also do things we couldn't do before.

    Someone implemented raytraced lighting, shadows, and GI in Minecraft. This kind of thing in a dynamic ever-changing world like Minecraft was 100% impossible before.



    This is another example of you contradicting yourself. You literally said:

    UGH. Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with people at work.

    Yes, the reason raytracing was not in games previously because it took 6 goddamn minutes to render one frame. But new hardware allows us to rough it and clean up in milliseconds, with specially designed cores to make raytracing 5x easier than the last generation. Basically a combination of hardware and software engineering miracles working together brought us this tech, and only good things can come from it.

    Look how realistic that game looks lol.

    Never said I needed a realistic looking game to have fun, I mean, do you know who you're talking to?!

    Posted April 20th by mariomguy

    “Not true! Sakurai's games (Kirby Super Star, Smash Bros. series) still control well to this day. Super Mario 64 is still the king of freeform 3D platforming controls, though it might've been trumped by Spiderman. ”

    Ok? Who argued this point?

    “I tried playing Super Mario Kart again and the controls were atrocious. Same for Mario Kart 64. Mario Kart didn't really get good controls until the Gamecube title, which were further refined on the DS, Wii, and reached an apex in MK8. ”

    You are missing the point. I, as in me, can go back to MK64 and have just as much fun as with MK8. Just because you can’t doesnt make it the same for everyone else. The world does not revolve around you.

    “UGH. Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with people at work. ”

    You should look into that, they may have a point.

    “Never said I needed a realistic looking game to have fun, I mean, do you know who you're talking to?!”

    You have literally been arguing about this with me the whole time. I said how I don’t need realistic graphics to enjoy a game and you’ve been ranting about ray tracing.

    Edited April 21st by Q
    Q
     

    I mean, do you know who you're talking to?

    Game Talks Reckoning

    “UGH. Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with people at work. ”


    based on how you act on this site (this thread for example) and what you told us about your job and how you treat people I really think you might be the problem.

    There is a saying in my culture that goes something like this:

    "If everywhere you go it smells like shit, maybe it's time to check your own shoes." - Anonymous

    Happy Easter Guys!



    Edited April 21st by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Ok? Who argued this point?

    You said all the things I mentioned about poor controls in Mario Kart could be applied to any game in that era. So, that was your point, which I quickly shot down.

    You are missing the point. I, as in me, can go back to MK64 and have just as much fun as with MK8. Just because you can’t doesnt make it the same for everyone else.

    You... you like slow driving, framerate drops, sloppy controls, and poor level design just as much as MK8? Seriously? You wouldn't consider playing MK8 maybe a little bit more because of the aforementioned improvements, plus the online mode? Seriously?

    You have literally been arguing about this with me the whole time. I said how I don’t need realistic graphics to enjoy a game and you’ve been ranting about ray tracing.



    I am so glad you are not in charge of anything. No thanks, I'd rather not have to render a world 4 times over in order to get a decent shadow, and unlike you this is something I actually do care about. Whether you like it or not, stuff like AO, shadows, reflections, and indirect lighting all play a massive and important role in making 3D games look, feel, and play the way we expect them to. Without these rendering effects, objects would appear to float, be lit from nowhere, and lack all directionality and context. When you add that stuff in, something as simple as direction becomes a lot easier to figure out. It's something you take for granted now because we have it, but go back and play old games that don't. Go and play Super Mario Sunshine: you may be a lot more disappointed than expected.

    based on how you act on this site (this thread for example) and what you told us about your job and how you treat people I really think you might be the problem.

    Most people on this site are trolls, or at least they act like it. Things I had to explain to people:

  • Mario Kart 8 is better than 64
  • Raytracing makes perfect results easier to accomplish
  • Though it's not the only thing that matters, the better a game looks, the better it will feel and play. You wouldn't play an HD game on a CRT if you had a choice, so why deny the improvements for what they are? Things that improve gaming?
  • Don't ignore other people, create more work for them, and then get upset for being yelled at.

    Seriously, if people don't care about raytracing, then why come here and say they don't care repeatedly? Don't post in this thread. Do something else. If you don't want to listen to my advice, fine. Do something else. But if the world falters for it, you can't blame me for that, too. People should learn to take some more responsibility upon themselves to make sure they're doing the right thing and being considerate of others. Whatever you think is a problem happening at my workplace is not. People are getting along with me just fine. They made their mistakes, embarrassed themselves, and learned from it.

    I'm posting this info here not just as a gamer, or as a developer, but as a friend to you guys as well. I wanted to give you all some insight into what's going on: raytracing is the biggest thing to happen in game rendering since 3D. Dev communities that strictly banned hardware talk now have thread after thread of hardware discussions as everyone is marching to upgrade their rigs to get raytracing operational. You can pretend to be apathetic about it, but this is the future of gaming, and it will hit you like a ton of bricks whether you like it or not. There will be entire games written with raytracing specifically in mind, and if you don't have a PC that can run it, then you can't play it. I was hoping we could have a decent discussion about this, but if that can't happen, this thread would be better off closed without any replies.

    If anyone has any actual questions about raytracing, please ask. I don't have a capable device myself just yet, but I am fully versed in what's going on through release notes and documentation.

  • Edited April 22nd by mariomguy

    You can pretend to be apathetic about it, but this is the future of gaming, and it will hit you like a ton of bricks whether you like it or not.


    How many times have I heard this from developers of any profession.

    Look I get as a developer you're super excited about this, but for the average customer raytracing isn't that big of a deal. Yes it looks pretty but customers quickly get over that and let's be honest here 99%% of raytracing usage will be to make games look prettier. Very few are going to utilise it for gameplay enhancement.

    There will be entire games written with raytracing specifically in mind, and if you don't have a PC that can run it, then you can't play it.


    A minority of games. And this is a long way off. Competitive gamers like their faster frames and even on a 2080TI it's been shown you can't reach 144, so that's an entire subsection of the market that right now have no vested interest in jumping onboard. Not to mention the price of the good raytracing cards is beyond what many want to spend. The 2060 can raytrace better than previous series of cards, but it can't do it that amazingly based off of the performance tests I've seen in reviews.

    ___________________________________

    As I said, I can tell you're really excited as a developer but for customers there's really very little to be excited over at this point. Mainstream adoption is still a while off, there's only like three games that make use of it right now and I don't think they are all using all the raytracing features (pretty sure Metro is only using the lighting?).

    Also keep in mind you're wanting a discussion with people who are customers. If you wanted a developer behind the scenes talk over raytracing then perhaps you should have made the post where you can find developers?

    I saw where you were wanting to go with this post after my first couple of replies and that's why I dropped out of it. I saw you weren't interested in my opinion and just wanted to talk Dev at me which was not a conversation I was interested in.

    Edited April 22nd by Moonray

    "You said all the things I mentioned about poor controls in Mario Kart could be applied to any game in that era. So, that was your point, which I quickly shot down. "

    lol, You didn't quickly shoot anything down. Mario Kart 64 still controls very well. I have said this in the past that newer games have the fortune have having their control schemes refined and improved over the years so it makes sense that they should control better. Other wise developers aren't doing their jobs well.

    "You... you like slow driving, framerate drops, sloppy controls, and poor level design just as much as MK8? Seriously? You wouldn't consider playing MK8 maybe a little bit more because of the aforementioned improvements, plus the online mode? Seriously? "

    Where are you getting sloppy controls and poor level design from? There is a reason that Nintendo still includes tracks from MK64 in newer MK games. Most are very well designed and layed out. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them poor. And I can still pull off power slides and precise turns in MK64 so the controls are far from sloppy. You just suck at the game.

    "I am so glad you are not in charge of anything."

    What does being in charge of anything have to do with this discussion? What exactly are you in charge of?

    Never said I needed a realistic looking game to have fun, I mean, do you know who you're talking to?!


    No thanks, I'd rather not have to render a world 4 times over in order to get a decent shadow, and unlike you this is something I actually do care about. Whether you like it or not, stuff like AO, shadows, reflections, and indirect lighting all play a massive and important role in making 3D games look, feel, and play the way we expect them to. Without these rendering effects, objects would appear to float, be lit from nowhere, and lack all directionality and context. When you add that stuff in, something as simple as direction becomes a lot easier to figure out. It's something you take for granted now because we have it, but go back and play old games that don't. Go and play Super Mario Sunshine: you may be a lot more disappointed than expected.




    "Seriously, if people don't care about raytracing, then why come here and say they don't care repeatedly? Don't post in this thread. Do something else. If you don't want to listen to my advice, fine. Do something else. But if the world falters for it, you can't blame me for that, too. "

    Last time I checked, this is a website made for talking about video games and hardware. So if you make a post about a topic, anyone can respond with their opinions or facts. If you want to make a post all about how ray tracing is the end all be all, we can respond back about how it isn't. IF you don't like that then you shouldn't post here and go do something else. The things you say most of the time are far from advice.

    "People should learn to take some more responsibility upon themselves to make sure they're doing the right thing and being considerate of others. Whatever you think is a problem happening at my workplace is not. People are getting along with me just fine. They made their mistakes, embarrassed themselves, and learned from it. "

    So when do you take responsibility? When do you learn from your mistakes?

    "I'm posting this info here not just as a gamer, or as a developer, but as a friend to you guys as well."

    And we are telling you as not only a gamer, but as friends as well that ray Tracing is not a big of deal as you think and that it is not needed to have fun with video games. Explain to me how Ray Tracing would make Breath of the Wild, or God of War a more fun game to play.

    "You can pretend to be apathetic about it, but this is the future of gaming, and it will hit you like a ton of bricks whether you like it or not. There will be entire games written with ray tracing specifically in mind, and if you don't have a PC that can run it, then you can't play it."

    No. It's going to take a while for developers to figure out how to properly implement Ray Tracing. You also have to take into account how developers will have to make games with older hardware in mind. Only hardcore PC gamers are likely to upgrade to the latest hardware right away. Most Casual gamers are going to wait a while to let the prices drop.

    Also, why do I need to buy a PC when the PS5 is said to have ray tracing? I'll just wait for that to come out. And even then it will take a couple years to see good use of ray tracing, i'm sure.

    " I was hoping we could have a decent discussion about this, but if that can't happen, this thread would be better off closed without any replies. "

    So basically because people aren't agreeing with what you are saying you want to close the thread down so you don't have to see anyone else's replies? I've been keeping it as respectful as I can and explaining my points. I can promise you that I am not the only person who can go back to N64 games such as MK64 and have just as much fun as with games made today. I am not saying ray tracing is a bad thing, i'm sure it will make games look great once devs know how to use it. But it is not needed to enjoy a game. It's simple.

    Edited April 22nd by Q
    Q
     



    Posted April 22nd by Cruinn-Annuin

    Go and play Super Mario Sunshine: you may be a lot more disappointed than expected.


    Probably wouldn't be tbh because I have unusual tastes when it comes to things. and gamecube stuff is still great to me.

    Edited April 22nd by Knuckles4099

    Go and play Super Mario Sunshine: you may be a lot more disappointed than expected.


    Or not, because Super Mario Sunshine is a great game. Better than Galaxy or Galaxy 2 anyway.

    Most people on this site are trolls, or at least they act like it. Things I had to explain to people:

    Mario Kart 8 is better than 64


    As always, someone having a different opinion than you does not make them a troll. Despite whatever advancements MK8 may have over 64, it's entirely possible that people find 64 more fun. I don't know why you seem to struggle with the concept of personal preference so much.

    Raytracing makes perfect results easier to accomplish


    Where did anyone argue that this wasn't the case? You seem to be totally misinterpreting what everyone is saying about raytracing.

    Though it's not the only thing that matters, the better a game looks, the better it will feel and play. You wouldn't play an HD game on a CRT if you had a choice, so why deny the improvements for what they are? Things that improve gaming?


    Your first sentence is just wrong, there's no way around it. A pretty game will not automatically feel and play better than an 'ugly' game The second is also wrong. There are plenty of people that play games on CRTs for faster response times. It tends to be a specific use case, like fighting game tournaments, but it's still a thing.



    Posted April 22nd by Count Dooku

    There are plenty of people that play games on CRTs for faster response times. It tends to be a specific use case, like fighting game tournaments, but it's still a thing.


    CRTs are still used in certain Counter-Strike circles as well, due to the extremely fast response time.

    Posted April 22nd by Cruinn-Annuin

    Minecraft has been insanely popular for a long time despite having the graphics of a PS1 game.

    Posted April 22nd by Q
    Q
     

    ...hmm. What is mariomguy's opinion on Minecraft, anyway?

    Posted April 22nd by Cruinn-Annuin

    A minority of games. And this is a long way off. Competitive gamers like their faster frames and even on a 2080TI it's been shown you can't reach 144, so that's an entire subsection of the market that right now have no vested interest in jumping onboard.

    With raytracing, you're able to view reflections from everywhere: glass, mirrors, chrome, polished metals, etc. that used to have generic reflections can now CHANGE COLOR as enemies approach from behind. You can look into these objects and still watch the gameplay happening around the corner or behind you. Impossible without raytracing.

    Currently there are various optimizations to raytracing: it's very resolution-dependent, so lower res will always run faster. You don't need to raytrace reflections for very rough surfaces because the color shift isn't as obvious: the reflection environment will still be used. And we might be a ways off for dynamic GI to be fully implemented, but that's absolutely inevitable now that the tech is here. Denoising will be used to "upsample" the quality of raytracing, so the system is very flexible to support faster rendering on slower devices.

    But if you have an RTX 2060, then 1080p 60f with raytracing on Battlefield V is absolutely possible, and performance can only get better from here.

    As I said, I can tell you're really excited as a developer but for customers there's really very little to be excited over at this point. Mainstream adoption is still a while off, there's only like three games that make use of it right now and I don't think they are all using all the raytracing features (pretty sure Metro is only using the lighting?).

    UE4 already publicly released 4.22 to bring raytracing to the mainstream, together with performance improvements from their preview releases. All you have to do is upgrade your project and check a few boxes to turn on raytraced shadows and reflections. When the engine updates to allow raytracing for landscapes, I imagine every open world game henceforth will use this for shadows rather than deal with the nonsense of baking. Within this year, raytracing will absolutely explode on the scene, and it's all starting right now. And the next time NVIDIA makes an architecture improvement, it will just gobble up all other forms of rendering. Soon, it will all be raytraced.

    Mario Kart 64 still controls very well. I have said this in the past that newer games have the fortune have having their control schemes refined and improved over the years so it makes sense that they should control better. Other wise developers aren't doing their jobs well.

    OK, but go back and play it, then play Mario Kart 8. We like to look at old games through the rose tinted lenses of our childhood, but we forget how awful and frustrating they actually were. Very few of those games aged like fine wine, most of them aged like milk, or a banana after you squeezed it.

    So when do you take responsibility? When do you learn from your mistakes?

    When you prove they are actually mistakes.

    All of the nice effects that ran your guys' games on poor hardware are all going to get tossed out the window VERY soon. You guys don't realize, but getting the nice graphics you see in Assassin's Creed requires hundreds of hours of baking time on a render farm! Since 2010 devs have been trying their best to figure out ways to step away from it, and there've been countless attempts, all of which had serious drawbacks. But raytracing has 0 drawbacks at all: it works with everything you throw at it, and the results look beautiful. That's the method CGI films use, and now it's officially come to gaming!

    No. It's going to take a while for developers to figure out how to properly implement Ray Tracing. You also have to take into account how developers will have to make games with older hardware in mind.

    Like I said, not only is it insanely difficult/impossible for devs to get the results they want on poor hardware, but it also costs a fortune to do so. Raytracing would be implemented through NVIDIA's API (or just upgrade your UE4 project to 4.22 and check a couple boxes), so it's not like we need to spend much time to "figure it out." Raytracing doesn't present any problems, it only presents solutions. So if everyone buys an RTX 2060 right now, there will be no more problems. When Epic gets it working with Landscape, you can kiss prebaked shadows goodbye forever.

    Or not, because Super Mario Sunshine is a great game. Better than Galaxy or Galaxy 2 anyway.



    As always, someone having a different opinion than you does not make them a troll. Despite whatever advancements MK8 may have over 64, it's entirely possible that people find 64 more fun. I don't know why you seem to struggle with the concept of personal preference so much.

    It's like someone telling you the best chocolate is a Milky Way left over from last Halloween, while they're eating a Lindt truffle. I mean, they're both food, but one is clearly superior. It's hard to justify that opinion when the game runs like sludge.

    Your first sentence is just wrong, there's no way around it. A pretty game will not automatically feel and play better than an 'ugly' game

    Not necessarily, but if you had a choice between playing Mario Kart 8 at SD or 4K and it didn't cost more to do 4K, which would you pick?

    I found someone who, somehow, managed to take an ultra-high-res screenshot of Mario Kart 8 at 3x higher than 1080p. Aside from lack of anti aliasing, it looks gorgeous! I would definitely prefer playing that game at that quality.



    There are plenty of people that play games on CRTs for faster response times. It tends to be a specific use case, like fighting game tournaments, but it's still a thing.

    CRTs are still used in certain Counter-Strike circles as well, due to the extremely fast response time.

    You can just say it, Smash Bros. That's all CRTs are good for. Latency is still an issue with some modern television monitors, but game mode take off the edge. Still, any console made prior to the advent of HDMI required an analog out, so the signal must be converted to digital for most modern TVs, which adds even more latency. But modern gaming monitors are really good: 144 hz max, push the frame as soon as the GPU receives it, very typically 1ms latency, around $200 for a 24" 1080p.

    If I had a choice between playing Mario Kart on a CRT or gaming monitor, I'd absolutely choose the gaming monitor.

    Posted April 22nd by mariomguy

    ...hmm. What is mariomguy's opinion on Minecraft, anyway?

    Haven't played it, no opinion.

    Posted April 22nd by mariomguy

    It's like someone telling you the best chocolate is a Milky Way left over from last Halloween, while they're eating a Lindt truffle. I mean, they're both food, but one is clearly superior.


    ... Except games don't go bad over time? There's no 'best by October 10th 2011' stamped on the back of Mario Kart 64.

    And of course, there's no objective comparison between a (non-expired) Milky Way and a Lindt truffle. It's perfectly legitimate to prefer one over the other. You understand that, right? The fact that Mariomguy prefers a Lindt truffle doesn't make it the objective, superior choice for humanity at large...?

    It seems to me that your issue with a game like Mario Kart 64 is that it's older, and therefore automatically worse than whatever came after. And THAT is an opinion that is hard to 'justify', as you would say.

    There are plenty of people that play games on CRTs for faster response times. It tends to be a specific use case, like fighting game tournaments, but it's still a thing.

    CRTs are still used in certain Counter-Strike circles as well, due to the extremely fast response time.


    You can just say it, Smash Bros. That's all CRTs are good for.




    You JUST quoted CA talking about them being used in Counter Strike and then said they're only good for Smash. And while yes, they are used heavily for Smash Bros, they're also relevant to other fighting games and reaction-heavy shooters.

    Edited April 22nd by Count Dooku

    So, as a consumer, my take away is this:

    This technology is cool. Developers are probably going to have a good time with this.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to notice when everything is this. Or, it will just occur naturally and I won't even notice that I notice (sort of like when higher frame rates became the norm).

    I will play these new games and be impressed with the look and feel of them. And I will also go back and play my old games and have just as much fun as I always did. And I will neither have more nor less fun playing older games as I do newer ones. That's how it's always been. The tech has gotten better every generation and the games have looked nicer and "played smoother," but I have just as much fun playing the newest Wolfenstein as I did playing the first.

    (I almost feel like more video game developers should get a little more into board/card/table top game design, now that I think about it.)

    Posted April 22nd by Jet Presto

    ... Except games don't go bad over time?

    No, games by themselves do not simply "go bad," but our expectations change. The stuff that we used to gawk at and love was is now either commonplace and much better utilized or heavily outdated and unliked. Again, all you have to do is plug in an old game and play it. You might appreciate it as a timepiece, or as a simple distraction, but you can't truly indulge in it the way you might've been able to before. The games that aged like milk do not hold up today.

    Mariomguy prefers a Lindt truffle doesn't make it the objective, superior choice for humanity at large...?

    Yes. A world where people prefer Milky Way to a Lindt truffle is not a world I want to live in.

    And while yes, they are used heavily for Smash Bros, they're also relevant to other fighting games and reaction-heavy shooters.

    Gaming monitors are better than CRTs in every way for playing modern games. Unless you're using an old game console that outputs to analog or component video, gaming monitors are the way to go. Most graphics cards made in the last 10 years only offer HDMI and Displayport, so in order to use a CRT you'd need to downconvert the video anyways, which will result in lag.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to notice when everything is this. Or, it will just occur naturally and I won't even notice that I notice (sort of like when higher frame rates became the norm).

    So, the first thing you will notice is lighting, shadows, and reflections will all appear a lot more focused and higher quality. Performance will be a lot more stable, as well. The effects should all appear seamlessly integrated with the scene. In the future, the possibilities will grow.



    Edited April 23rd by mariomguy

    No, games by themselves do not simply "go bad," but our expectations change. The stuff that we used to gawk at and love was is now either commonplace and much better utilized or heavily outdated and unliked. Again, all you have to do is plug in an old game and play it. You might appreciate it as a timepiece, or as a simple distraction, but you can't truly indulge in it the way you might've been able to before.


    I mean, they "go bad" if you let yourself get swept away by the trends. I've been playing and enjoying the hell out of Oldschool Runescape, which is a throwback from 2007. I'm about to get into World of Warcraft classic, which is based on patch 1.12.0, released in 2006, which has huge demand from the playerbase. One of my favorite games of all time, even to this day, is Counter-Strike: Source from 2004, which hasn't had an update for nine years. I still occasionally play Unreal Tournament 1999. And what I consider to be one of the best and most important RPGs of all time, NetHack, was initially released in 1987. I still love and have fun will all these games - and no, there are not just better versions of them now. Not everything can be automatically improved upon. A significant part of game design is art, not just in the literal sense of the sights and sounds that you perceive, but in the subtleties of design, experience, cultural import, time and place, creative intent, etc.

    I still listen to metal albums from the '80s and '90s for the same reason. Also, you really need to stop telling us how we feel about things. If you don't like games that you used to like, that's fine. Trying to enforce that as our reality is not.

    Gaming monitors are better than CRTs in every way for playing modern games.


    ...in every way except response time. But I don't think we're talking about playing the latest Mario Kart or Crysis 7 on 999999999999p on a CRT. What Dookie and I were talking about was playing certain games on legacy equipment that happens to function better in a certain specific application relevant to those games. Arcade fighters, competitive shooters, hell, speedrunners. A lot of them use CRTs because they're better for those purposes.

    Edited April 23rd by Cruinn-Annuin

    "OK, but go back and play it, then play Mario Kart 8. We like to look at old games through the rose tinted lenses of our childhood, but we forget how awful and frustrating they actually were. Very few of those games aged like fine wine, most of them aged like milk, or a banana after you squeezed it. "

    I own both, and I have gone back recently and played both. Graphically MK64 looks fuzzy, but honestly what do you expect from a system that is almost 23 years old and plugged into a HDTV through composite cables? If it were a person it could go out and buy cigarettes and some Vodka while driving to vote for the next U.S. president. Gameplay wise, it's still pretty good. Many elements that Mario Kart series is know for were introduced in MK64.

    "It's like someone telling you the best chocolate is a Milky Way left over from last Halloween, while they're eating a Lindt truffle. I mean, they're both food, but one is clearly superior. It's hard to justify that opinion when the game runs like sludge. "

    That's just the worst analogy, and simply not true. While some games do age badly, other's do not. Graphics are just the icing on a cake, which is made up of things like GAMEPLAY.

    "No, games by themselves do not simply "go bad," but our expectations change. The stuff that we used to gawk at and love was is now either commonplace and much better utilized or heavily outdated and unliked. Again, all you have to do is plug in an old game and play it. You might appreciate it as a timepiece, or as a simple distraction, but you can't truly indulge in it the way you might've been able to before. The games that aged like milk do not hold up today."

    You know, I'm beginning to think that you are a very vain person.You only ever seem to care about how a game looks, but not how it plays. We have seen so many recent examples of games that had great graphics but failed with GamePlay. Those are the games that are going to age like milk. A game that has excellent gameplay will always be good not matter how it looks because graphics can always be improved over time with updates and remasters but gameplay cannot.

    "Yes. A world where people prefer Milky Way to a Lindt truffle is not a world I want to live in."

    Are you trolling, or being serious? I ask this because someone can't be that self absorbed but with you I just can't tell if you're fucking with us or not.

    "Not necessarily, but if you had a choice between playing Mario Kart 8 at SD or 4K and it didn't cost more to do 4K, which would you pick? "

    Obviously a person will pick the sharper image if given the option. The point is that people dont NEED 4K or realistic graphics to have fun with a game. I still play games on my original X1 and PS4 and I have just as much fun with them as I would with a X1X or PS4 Pro. I have just as much fun playing games on my Switch as well despite it not being able to match those consoles..


    "So, the first thing you will notice is lighting, shadows, and reflections will all appear a lot more focused and higher quality. Performance will be a lot more stable, as well. The effects should all appear seamlessly integrated with the scene. In the future, the possibilities will grow. "



    Edited April 23rd by Q
    Q
     

    So, the first thing you will notice is lighting, shadows, and reflections will all appear a lot more focused and higher quality.


    Sure. But what I'm saying is that as a consumer of video games, beyond noticing that it looks good, I don't think I would have spent any amount of time looking at the lighting, shadows, and reflections. I'd think, "Wow, this looks good!" and then get right into playing the game without a second thought about it.

    The only reason I am noticing the lighting, shadows, and reflections in that video is that you posted it in the context of this conversation, and that you pointed them out for me to specifically look for.

    Without that, I guarantee that I just pick up a new game, think, "Wow, this looks great!" and then get absorbed into playing the game more than anything else. I enjoy looking at details of environments in games sometimes - do so in Souls/Borne, do so in Naughty Dog games, sure - but mostly, my attention goes to the game design rather than the graphical fidelity. I notice when games look good, but I don't spend much time thinking about it - especially while I am playing.

    That's my point. This is a thing that is likely to be much more exciting for developers that won't be *that* big of a deal for most consumers. This is not saying the tech is overrated or shouldn't be happening. Just that it's the kind of "behind the scenes" tech that is hard for a lot of people to get super excited about.

    Posted April 23rd by Jet Presto

    I mean, they "go bad" if you let yourself get swept away by the trends.

    There are a lot of old games I still love. I've recently gone back to play Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005, and I'm finding myself actually enjoying the experience. I actually purchased Quake III: Arena on Steam (though I do spend more time with the newest UT).

    But overall, most of the games I go back to play now actually leave me quite depressed. They're all fuzzy, many don't perform well, many don't control well, and the gameplay suffers because of it. Super Mario World was amazing when it came out because it was better than everything else, but playing it today, it feels like a step down from New Super Mario Bros. And we like to compare the best from all eras: Pac Man Vs. Super Mario Bros. 3 Vs. Journey Vs. The Last of Us, but reality is there were a ton of terrible games all along the way. Just look at AVGN for all the shitty games that happened over the years.

    A lot of them use CRTs because they're better for those purposes.

    Do you know how long 1ms response time is? I can totally understand 10ms and up, games suffer a lot from that. But our brain can't even run that fast! It's completely 100% imperceptible, even to the very best of tournament players.

    The only reason CRTs are still used is A: outdated information regarding LCD monitors, and B: compatibility with analog systems (basically every system before PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U). Just the conversion of a modern digital game to an older analog CRT would create more latency than keeping the signal digital and using a high-end gaming monitor.

    Gameplay wise, it's still pretty good. Many elements that Mario Kart series is know for were introduced in MK64.

    The 3-lap grand prix, more dramatic level design, a lot of the item system, and several other things, yeah. But the game still controls really poorly and a LOT of the design is very archaic. Things got way more focused on the Gamecube before finally being perfected on the Wii U.

    That's just the worst analogy, and simply not true. While some games do age badly, other's do not. Graphics are just the icing on a cake, which is made up of things like GAMEPLAY.

    OK, Mario Kart 64's gameplay doesn't hold up by today's standards. Please actually listen to my arguments instead of assuming I don't care about gameplay.

    You know, I'm beginning to think that you are a very vain person.You only ever seem to care about how a game looks, but not how it plays.

    Ditto, from above. I care a lot about how a game plays. When I said I liked NSMBW more than SMW, I said the primary reason was the controls, graphics had nothing to do with it. But when you're making a game in 3D, you can't afford to do things cheaply or half-assed: you need to worry about dimension, depth, the position of things in 3D space. Without shadows, proper AO, reflections, or the kind of effects games are developing, you can't gauge depth and contact properly. I started making a 3D open world game in the vain of Super Mario Sunshine, and I wanted it to perform well. But when I removed all the effects, everything just looked floating, and wrong. When I added the effects back in the scene had more depth, and I could better tell where everything was supposed to be. The game, by virtue of looking nicer, seemed to play better. Personally, I hate it when framerate drops below 60f, but I also find myself hating the removal of shadows. If for nothing else, raytracing can make it easier to get amazing perfect shadows with better performance in open-world settings than the most common form of shadowing, cascaded shadow maps. That alone makes raytracing worth it.

    Obviously a person will pick the sharper image if given the option. The point is that people dont NEED 4K or realistic graphics to have fun with a game.

    Well, of course not. But if you want to have more fun, the game needs to look good and perform well. Raytracing can make that happen.

    Without that, I guarantee that I just pick up a new game, think, "Wow, this looks great!" and then get absorbed into playing the game more than anything else.

    OK. Some people can't specify exactly what makes something look great the same way a 3D artist can, but you still generalize X looks better than Y. Raytracing will make X look a million times better than Y and achieve that result faster than Y ever could.

    That's my point. This is a thing that is likely to be much more exciting for developers that won't be *that* big of a deal for most consumers. This is not saying the tech is overrated or shouldn't be happening. Just that it's the kind of "behind the scenes" tech that is hard for a lot of people to get super excited about.

    I mean, like I said before, this means you will get much better looking games, and we can do things with games we never could before. I'd like to see a close-combat shooter or espionage type of game using mirrored reflections to be able to peer around corners or see behind you. Maybe you won't realize that this tech got us there, but I'm sure you'll be happy with the results.

    Posted April 23rd by mariomguy

    No, you do not need better graphics (or graphics at all) in order to have more fun.

    CRTs are still used because there are certain areas in which they perform better than modern monitors.

    You are acting really arrogant and self-absorbed with your "knowledge" right now. What was that that you have been saying recently about deferring to others in fields in F their knowledge? We're telling you things and you're disrespecting us immensely.

    Posted April 23rd by Cruinn-Annuin

    Um, sorry, but just because someone still games on a CRT does not mean they're right and I'm wrong. You need to respect people who know the truth and are trying to help, otherwise merit has absolutely no meaning.

    If you're playing on a console or device that processes video in analog, like the Gamecube or the Wii, the most lag-free option is an analog display, like a CRT TV.

    If you're playing on a console or device that processes video digitally (basically anything with HDMI or Displayport), the most lag-free option is a digital gaming monitor, specifically designed for low-latency. The Asus VG248QE has 0.7ms input lag and 1ms GTG response time, and it is used by pros for CounterStrike: GO tournaments.

    Yes, tell me the right things and I'll respect you. But disrespect me when I'm right and you'll just make a fool out of yourself. There's a lot of misinformation spreading like wildfire nowadays, especially as things change, so be vigilant and always verify.

    Posted April 24th by mariomguy

    Um, sorry, but just because someone still games on a CRT does not mean they're right and I'm wrong.


    No-one said that that was why you're wrong. You're wrong because of the objective facts, which is also why some people still use CRT monitors for certain applications. It's amazing that you need to misrepresent our positions this severely in order to make yourself look reasonable.

    Why do you want to talk about respect and not being ignorant when you do things like this?

    The Asus VG248QE has 0.7ms input lag and 1ms GTG response time, and it is used by pros for CounterStrike: GO tournaments.


    Yes, most modern CS players use a modern monitor.

    tell me the right things and I'll respect you. But disrespect me when I'm right and you'll just make a fool out of yourself.


    Half the time, you don't even understand the point of what people are explaining to you, so who is the fool here?

    Edited April 24th by Cruinn-Annuin

    It’s true. Super Smash Bros Melee has a huge tournament scene and they always use early 2000s CRTs. Because they are optimal for gen 6 games and have no lag.

    Posted April 24th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    "OK, Mario Kart 64's gameplay doesn't hold up by today's standards. Please actually listen to my arguments instead of assuming I don't care about gameplay. "

    I AM listening. I have acknowledged that MK8 is more refined. I have never, at any point, said MK8 wasn't better than MK64. I said I can have just as much fun going back to MK64 as with MK8. That is just my enjoyment factor and in no way intend for other people to feel the same way. You don't enjoy MK64, I get it. But, Please actually listen my argument that just because a game has muddy graphics doesn't mean it's not fun to play. Have I once said told you that you were wrong for still enjoying Unreal Tournament? I made a joke about it's graphics but that was it, if you enjoy the game then more power to you and keep playing.

    "The 3-lap grand prix, more dramatic level design, a lot of the item system, and several other things, yeah. But the game still controls really poorly and a LOT of the design is very archaic. Things got way more focused on the Gamecube before finally being perfected on the Wii U. "

    You are missing the point again. Graphics < Gameplay.

    "Well, of course not. But if you want to have more fun, the game needs to look good and perform well. Raytracing can make that happen. "

    Perform well, Yes. A game with stuttering framerates will impact gameplay, however the game does NOT have to look good. How much more do we need to beat this horse?

    "Ditto, from above. I care a lot about how a game plays. When I said I liked NSMBW more than SMW, I said the primary reason was the controls, graphics had nothing to do with it. But when you're making a game in 3D, you can't afford to do things cheaply or half-assed: you need to worry about dimension, depth, the position of things in 3D space. Without shadows, proper AO, reflections, or the kind of effects games are developing, you can't gauge depth and contact properly. I started making a 3D open world game in the vain of Super Mario Sunshine, and I wanted it to perform well. But when I removed all the effects, everything just looked floating, and wrong. When I added the effects back in the scene had more depth, and I could better tell where everything was supposed to be. The game, by virtue of looking nicer, seemed to play better. Personally, I hate it when framerate drops below 60f, but I also find myself hating the removal of shadows. If for nothing else, raytracing can make it easier to get amazing perfect shadows with better performance in open-world settings than the most common form of shadowing, cascaded shadow maps. That alone makes raytracing worth it. "

    OMG, apparently we need to beat this horse into the quantum realm. You've been going on and on about ray tracing and graphics, and barely about gameplay. You have yet to explain how ray tracing will make gameplay better other than "Reflections Man!!!!"

    "Yes, tell me the right things and I'll respect you. But disrespect me when I'm right and you'll just make a fool out of yourself. "

    So basically, you'll only respect people that share the same opinion as you and take it as disrespect if people don't. That's not how respect is earned. And honestly if that is your view on things, I couldn't give a shit less if you respect me or not.

    "There's a lot of misinformation spreading like wildfire nowadays, especially as things change, so be vigilant and always verify."

    A lot of it comes from people like you who have a arrogant, ignorant, egotistical and self absorbed attitude about things and are unwilling to listen to others or even acknowledge their point of view. As long as you keep doing this, no one will respect you in any social circle, guaranteed.

    Edited April 24th by Q
    Q
     

    @mariomguy

    Do you care about respect from others? You mention respect quite often. But you consistently have a tone of being smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone here and at this point I feel confident in saying that no one here feels respect towards you because of that tone and arrogance you carry. This pattern has been present for 10 years. Surely you recognize this always happens and that while everyone plays a part, that includes you. You are the common factor in all of these lengthy never-ending discussions. Why do you think that is? I am asking because it's kind of fascinating that you apparently do not see it.

    Posted April 24th by Vandy

    Minecraft with raytracing:



    Cool tech, but I don't think I'd like to play Minecraft with it. The game isn't designed like that and I find it jarring.

    Posted April 24th by Cruinn-Annuin

    No-one said that that was why you're wrong. You're wrong because of the objective facts, which is also why some people still use CRT monitors for certain applications.

    No graphics card released in the last 5 years was analog native. So absolutely no PC gaming should be on CRTs anymore. And since the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U, CRT requires conversion to analog, so no modern console gaming, either.

    It’s true. Super Smash Bros Melee has a huge tournament scene and they always use early 2000s CRTs. Because they are optimal for gen 6 games and have no lag.

    Yeah. It's unfortunate, though. You can get a Gamecube or Wii with component cables for 480p, there isn't a CRT that supports progressive scan. Lagless, but with interlacing and poor resolution. The end result really does yearn for something better. I'd personally wouldn't mind suffering 2ms lag for a proper gaming monitor. Large format gaming monitors are in vogue.

    I AM listening. I have acknowledged that MK8 is more refined. I have never, at any point, said MK8 wasn't better than MK64. I said I can have just as much fun going back to MK64 as with MK8.

    And I said you might be able to go back and enjoy those games as a timepiece, but for a lot of games you can't truly indulge in it the way you used to ages ago.

    You are missing the point again. Graphics < Gameplay.

    I'm talking about controls and level design, and again you're pretending I'm talking about graphics. Strawmanning to the nth degree!

    Perform well, Yes. A game with stuttering framerates will impact gameplay, however the game does NOT have to look good. How much more do we need to beat this horse?

    You really don't get it: there are no good options. An open world game without shadows would have interiors as bright as exteriors, which wouldn't make sense. Adding shadows without indirect lighting would make them completely black, which looks like a glitch. Having shadows but a basic fill color for the world (what most simulation games do?) works OK, but a lot of stuff still feels floating and out of place. It's not just look, it's feeling. Without proper shadows, reflections, and indirect lighting, the world just feels wrong, and you just can't gauge depth properly. It's very difficult to make something like that feel right. Those who were able to pull it off (looking squarely at Paper Mario) were masters. This is also why most N64 games aged like hell.

    So basically, you'll only respect people that share the same opinion as you and take it as disrespect if people don't.

    No, I'd prefer people develop real opinions based off of real facts.

    A lot of it comes from people like you who have a arrogant, ignorant, egotistical and self absorbed attitude about things and are unwilling to listen to others or even acknowledge their point of view. As long as you keep doing this, no one will respect you in any social circle, guaranteed.

    I mean, people come to me all the time to fix problems. They wouldn't if I was wrong. I'm sorry if it comes off as being arrogant, but there's a difference between an ass-pulled opinion and a well-argued thesis. There's also a difference between the truth and a lie.

    Do you care about respect from others? You mention respect quite often. But you consistently have a tone of being smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone here and at this point I feel confident in saying that no one here feels respect towards you because of that tone and arrogance you carry.

    For starters, I made this thread actually hoping someone else on this site was either a fellow dev tinkering with UE4, or a PC gamer looking to upgrade. Then people who actually have no knowledge claim it means nothing to them, even though there's a very real chance of certain devs switching to raytracing exclusively. I wanted a real discussion about this: the news is huge, and it impacts everyone.

    You are the common factor in all of these lengthy never-ending discussions. Why do you think that is?

    Other people don't know, don't want to know, and don't care. But they still want to talk like they mean something.

    Just this morning I had someone burst in and pop a meeting with my supervisor and hers. And methodically, I showed how every single thing that was a problem was from her or the course. I handled all info I received correctly. My supervisor called the customer and verified this, too. The biggest complaint against me? Long, detailed e-mails no one wants to read. Well, if you don't want to learn how to do things yourself, then you have to be able to defer to and respect the decisions of those who do. So, I'm constantly being put in a position where I'm receiving wrong information and told (not from my supervisor) to do things that will screw everything up. My knowledge saves their ass day after day, but day after day I can't be the only one who cares. People have to take it upon themselves to handle some of the responsibility or else everything will fall apart, like the case that happened this morning.

    The people who get along with me just fine are the ones who learn, listen, and show respect, but also have something to offer themselves. If you can correct me when I'm wrong, you better believe I'm going to listen and learn from you! I respect people for the things they do, always. But don't call me out unless you're ready to handle what's coming. Of course people call me names, I don't give them the chance to call me wrong.

    Posted April 24th by mariomguy

    No graphics card released in the last 5 years was analog native


    I literally own a GT 740 with a VGA output. But besides that, no-one claimed that anyone was building cutting-edge gaming rigs to hook up to a CRT.

    And I said you might be able to go back and enjoy those games as a timepiece, but for a lot of games you can't truly indulge in it the way you used to ages ago.


    That's not for you to decide for others.

    I mean, people come to me all the time to fix problems. They wouldn't if I was wrong


    Just because you have a job doesn't mean you're right.

    Then people who actually have no knowledge


    Do you realize that you make yourself look like such an ignorant child when you say things like this? Other people disagreeing with you through long, well-reasoned, substantiated posts where they commit the sin of not being as excited as you about a graphics technology upgrade should not be the catalyst for you being this unbelievably condescending.

    mguy, I'm really trying, here. Do you remember how I used to respond to you when we would argue? I am trying to give you the most respect that I can. I don't know how much more I have left in the tank.

    Posted April 24th by Cruinn-Annuin

    I literally own a GT 740 with a VGA output. But besides that, no-one claimed that anyone was building cutting-edge gaming rigs to hook up to a CRT.

    Yeah, apparently VGA output is still offered on extremely low-end cards... Something's not matching up. It takes power to convert digital to analog, the two systems are not just interchangeable.

    That's not for you to decide for others.

    OK, if someone can really indulge in Mario Kart 64, by all means.

    Just because you have a job doesn't mean you're right.

    No, I'm right because I know things. I do the research. I make arguments based on facts. Strings of successes lends credibility. It's not absolute, but nothing ever is.

    Do you realize that you make yourself look like such an ignorant child when you say things like this?

    Yeah. I'm a child because I want to discuss raytracing. The people who spend their time deliberately strawmanning and misconstruing all my arguments to the nth degree and repeating how little they care are the respectful adults we should all aspire to be.

    If nobody on this site wants to discuss raytracing, fine. I'd rather have a thread with no replies than a lot of replies of people twisting my words and hijacking the conversation. Some people won't change, I really shouldn't bother. Anyone who wants to discuss, PM me.

    Posted April 25th by mariomguy

    No, I'm right because I know things


    As a corollary, you think you're right when you think you know things. Sometimes, you don't when you think that you do. You also regularly ascribe to the realm of "fact" certain things that are at least partially the realm of preference.

    Yeah. I'm a child because I want to discuss raytracing.


    Again, twisting the narrative to try to make yourself look like you're just being trolled into oblivion, when the fact is that people just disagree with you. No-one came into this thread and said "pfft, raytracing, what are you, a dumb kid that just worries about how shiny shit is".

    If nobody on this site wants to discuss raytracing, fine.


    People disagreeing with you about how important raytracing is isn't derailing the thread about raytracing. Inasmuch as the thread has been "derailed", you yourself have brought in and/or encouraged arguments about gameplay, game feel, etc. with your facile "raytracing makes the game feel more grounded and thus makes it more fun" nonsense.

    Posted April 25th by Cruinn-Annuin

    "No graphics card released in the last 5 years was analog native. So absolutely no PC gaming should be on CRTs anymore. And since the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U, CRT requires conversion to analog, so no modern console gaming, either. "

    The fact is that games and consoles made prior to the GC era were made with CRT TV's in mind. They do not display well on HDTV's.

    "You can get a Gamecube or Wii with component cables for 480p, there isn't a CRT that supports progressive scan."

    GameCube component cables are ridiculously expensive. Better off getting Wii component cables. Also, CRT HDTV's supported progressive scan as well as CRT monitors.

    "And I said you might be able to go back and enjoy those games as a timepiece, but for a lot of games you can't truly indulge in it the way you used to ages ago. "

    A game does not have to be enjoyed as a time piece to be enjoyable.

    "OK, if someone can really indulge in Mario Kart 64, by all means."

    Finally, only took 4 days to get you to concede this point.

    "I'm talking about controls and level design, and again you're pretending I'm talking about graphics. Strawmanning to the nth degree! "

    Please learn what strawmanning means. I started this whole discussion off by saying that gameplay is better than pretty graphics. You argued against that saying pretty graphics can provide better gameplay. I challenged you to prove it and now you are twisting it that you are arguing about gameplay. I have been trying to keep us on the original topic, are you conceding that pretty graphics don't always benefit or improve gameplay?

    Also gameplay is defined as:

    the specific way in which players interact with a game, and in particular with video games. Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules, connection between player and the game, challenges and overcoming them, plot and player's connection with it. Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics and audio elements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay


    Meaning controls and level design are PART of the gameplay.

    "No, I'd prefer people develop real opinions based off of real facts. "

    Which I have been doing. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't make it false.

    "I mean, people come to me all the time to fix problems. They wouldn't if I was wrong. I'm sorry if it comes off as being arrogant, but there's a difference between an ass-pulled opinion and a well-argued thesis. There's also a difference between the truth and a lie. "

    No one is asking you to fix their problems here. You have yet to not ass-pull an opinion on how ray tracing and shadows can benefit or improve gameplay. And people probably come to you to fix their damn computer or programs, not to fix their opinion or point of view.

    "Then people who actually have no knowledge claim it means nothing to them, even though there's a very real chance of certain devs switching to raytracing exclusively. I wanted a real discussion about this: the news is huge, and it impacts everyone. "

    False on all 3 accounts. Ray Tracing is not a hard concept to understand and no one here is confused on what it provides. Devs wont be able to switch to it exclusively for a very long time. If you wanted a real discussion on on how this you would respond intelligently to our questions about how it benefits games outside of graphics, which you have yet to do.

    "No, I'm right because I know things."

    Quote of the day right there.

    " I do the research. I make arguments based on facts. Strings of successes lends credibility. It's not absolute, but nothing ever is. "

    Why can you not do any of that here? Providing links to a topic and regurgitating is not the same as knowing things and arguing with facts.

    "Yeah. I'm a child because I want to discuss raytracing. The people who spend their time deliberately strawmanning and misconstruing all my arguments to the nth degree and repeating how little they care are the respectful adults we should all aspire to be. "

    A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


    Read this and learn it. I am not refuting an argument that was not presented by you, nor has anyone else here. We are refuting the importance of Ray Tracing and it being needed to benefit Gameplay. You are the one strawmmaning here with your lack of addressing anyone's arguments. It is OK for people to disagree with you. Complaining and crying about it is why people see you as childish.

    "If nobody on this site wants to discuss raytracing, fine. I'd rather have a thread with no replies than a lot of replies of people twisting my words and hijacking the conversation. Some people won't change, I really shouldn't bother. Anyone who wants to discuss, PM me."

    Seriously. Tell us how Ray Tracing will benefit gameplay. Tell us what kind of gameplay will be provided that is not already available in current games. Prove our opinions wrong instead of repeating how it will be easier to make shadows and reflections. If you REALLY want a discussion about ray tracing then you will do this, otherwise you are just looking for people to blindly agree with you and stroke your already inflated ego.

    Edited April 25th by Q
    Q
     

    As a corollary, you think you're right when you think you know things. Sometimes, you don't when you think that you do. You also regularly ascribe to the realm of "fact" certain things that are at least partially the realm of preference.

    If you notice, I don't pronounce opinionated things as fact. But I do try to reason my point. You'll never hear me say "This is cool! I love it! Best ever!" At least, definitely not without having a very good reason to say so.

    Again, twisting the narrative to try to make yourself look like you're just being trolled into oblivion, when the fact is that people just disagree with you. No-one came into this thread and said "pfft, raytracing, what are you, a dumb kid that just worries about how shiny shit is".

    This is actually the jive I'm getting here.

    The fact is that games and consoles made prior to the GC era were made with CRT TV's in mind. They do not display well on HDTV's.

    Did not say otherwise. But if you did play Melee on a modern gaming monitor, the lag should not exceed a few milliseconds. A far cry from the 70+ that used to exist on older LCD televisions.

    Please learn what strawmanning means. I started this whole discussion off by saying that gameplay is better than pretty graphics.

    You started this discussion saying raytracing has no bearing on gameplay, only graphics! You're forgetting these things work in tandem with each other! Also, my suggestion raytraced reflections can improve your sense of other players around you is totally valid. The reason I don't like Mario Kart 64 is not because of graphics, but because of shortcomings with controls and game design.

    You have yet to not ass-pull an opinion on how ray tracing and shadows can benefit or improve gameplay.



    I am arguing with a wall.

    False on all 3 accounts. Ray Tracing is not a hard concept to understand and no one here is confused on what it provides.

    Um... you do realize you need to upgrade your GPU to play ray tracing, right? And there may be games that come out requiring its adoption.

    Devs wont be able to switch to it exclusively for a very long time.

    Devs can do whatever they want! If I want to make a game for PC with dynamic lighting, requiring raytracing for the world to even run, I can do that. If I want the same game to work for older computers, I have to spend a HUGE FREAKING TON more time getting it to function that way. Small studios and developers with larger budgets tend to focus their game towards the mainstream or hybridize it, but that takes a LOT more effort from the developer, and sometimes renders certain ideas impossible.

    If you wanted a real discussion on on how this you would respond intelligently to our questions about how it benefits games outside of graphics, which you have yet to do.

  • Allows perfect realtime reflections, recursion, and multi-rendering accurate enough to be used for gameplay purposes a-la Portal
  • Allows perfect dynamic raytraced shadows without any need for pre-baking, allowing near-infinite open worlds at CGI quality
  • Allows dynamic indirect lighting for changing time of day and moving lights. Interior worlds with color can be lit properly, as well as any game with dark corridors and movable flashlights, or lights that turn on and off. Dynamic lights can now reach farther.

    Whether you like it or not, graphics and gameplay work in tandem with each other, so any improvement to graphics allows us to lift the glass ceiling. Think of games like Journey and Flower: they wouldn't exist without the technology powering them.

    If you REALLY want a discussion about ray tracing then you will do this, otherwise you are just looking for people to blindly agree with you and stroke your already inflated ego.

    You keep brushing off every legitimate point I bring up. So, I'm not going to do this anymore.

  • Posted April 25th by mariomguy

    If you notice, I don't pronounce opinionated things as fact.


    Saying something doesn't make it true.

    Posted April 25th by Cruinn-Annuin

    I actually thought to myself when this thread was brand new and had no replies that it was going to be one of those ones where Mariom debates the whole site.

    Posted April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    "If you notice, I don't pronounce opinionated things as fact."

    That's pretty much all you do.

    "Did not say otherwise. But if you did play Melee on a modern gaming monitor, the lag should not exceed a few milliseconds. A far cry from the 70+ that used to exist on older LCD televisions. "

    Yes you did. And I said the fact is that games and consoles made prior to the GC era were made with CRT TV's in mind. Smash Bros Melee was released for the GC, thus negates your argument.

    "You started this discussion saying raytracing has no bearing on gameplay, only graphics!"

    Yup and I stand by that statement.

    " You're forgetting these things work in tandem with each other! Also, my suggestion raytraced reflections can improve your sense of other players around you is totally valid."

    Graphics complement gameplay, yes. However, besides framerate, they rarely if ever have a significant impact on gameplay. The biggest impact graphics had on gameplay was during the transition from 2D to 3D in the early/mid 1990's. That was when graphical capability opened up new gameplay techniques and you can see how the SNES struggled and how the PS1 and N64 succeeded. But after that it was just about improving polygon count and texture quality.

    "Um... you do realize you need to upgrade your GPU to play ray tracing, right? And there may be games that come out requiring its adoption. "

    If you go back to my very first reply to this thread I talk about the price of a graphics card that supports ray tracing. SO yes I realize you have to upgrade your GPU. There will EVENTUALLY be games made with ray tracing required, but that will be a long time from now when Developers feel that the customer install base is big enough to warrant making a game that people without ray tracing capable systems can't play. Otherwise they would be cutting off revenue and possibly pissing off their audience.

    "Devs can do whatever they want! If I want to make a game for PC with dynamic lighting, requiring raytracing for the world to even run, I can do that. If I want the same game to work for older computers, I have to spend a HUGE FREAKING TON more time getting it to function that way. Small studios and developers with larger budgets tend to focus their game towards the mainstream or hybridize it, but that takes a LOT more effort from the developer, and sometimes renders certain ideas impossible. "

    Read my previous statement. I realize that it will make it easier to produce good graphics. I have already stated this.

    Allows perfect realtime reflections, recursion, and multi-rendering accurate enough to be used for gameplay purposes a-la Portal
    Allows perfect dynamic raytraced shadows without any need for pre-baking, allowing near-infinite open worlds at CGI quality
    Allows dynamic indirect lighting for changing time of day and moving lights. Interior worlds with color can be lit properly, as well as any game with dark corridors and movable flashlights, or lights that turn on and off. Dynamic lights can now reach farther.


    HOW DOES ANY OF THAT CREATE NEW GAMEPLAY. That is all graphical, appearance, surface level presentation. We already have open world games, we've had them for YEARS. Dynamic Shadows and reflections are not needed for that.

    "Whether you like it or not, graphics and gameplay work in tandem with each other, so any improvement to graphics allows us to lift the glass ceiling. Think of games like Journey and Flower: they wouldn't exist without the technology powering them."

    Again, graphics complement gameplay, yes. Journey and Flower could have been developed in other graphical engines. Would they have looked the same? Probably not. Would they have not been as good? Who knows but the artistic approach is what you are referring too and those games were not meant to look realistic. Which brings me all the way back to my very first statement about how realistic games tend to get outdated faster than games that don't focus on realism.

    "You keep brushing off every legitimate point I bring up. So, I'm not going to do this anymore."

    That's fine, run away. I've been countering all you statements with legitimate points and questions. You cannot legitimately tell us how ray tracing will create GAMEPLAY experiences that are currently not already possible without it. I have stated that I can have just as much fun with games from 20 years ago that have worse graphics than today's games because GamePlay is more important than graphics. All you counter with is how Ray Tracing makes it easier for developers to create dynamic shadows, reflections and lighting. I get that, we all get that. No one here has argued that you are wrong on this point.

    "I am arguing with a wall."

    And now you know how I feel every time I get into a debate with you. I guess I keep doing this with you in hopes that one day the wall will come down and we can understand eachother, but ignoring other people's opinions and points of view and running away will not help that at all and will only serve to strengthen that wall.

    Posted April 26th by Q
    Q
     

    But if you did play Melee on a modern gaming monitor, the lag should not exceed a few milliseconds.

    Competitive melee players want things timed to be frame perfect dude. No amount of lag is acceptable when there's money on the line. Just admit that there is a time and place for old CRTs. They also happen to make gen 5 and gen 4 games look way more nostalgic and awesome and there's no black bar on either side of them. Whenever I play my snes classic and see the back bars it feels like the tv is doing a chore to play that game because the aspect ratio is different. Conker's bad fur day on a CRT looks amazing.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Just look at AVGN for all the shitty games that happened over the years.


    We will absolutely have tons of shitty games with this technology as well. It's not the tech that was the problem with all those shitty games of yester-year, and it won't be the tech as to why we have shitty games now or in the future.

    Posted April 26th by Jet Presto

    I am gonna play devil's advocate here Q.

    HOW DOES ANY OF THAT CREATE NEW GAMEPLAY. That is all graphical, appearance, surface level presentation. We already have open world games, we've had them for YEARS. Dynamic Shadows and reflections are not needed for that.

    Have you ever played Morrowind for the original xbox and then gone on and played Oblivion for Xbox 360?

    The differences in draw distance and immersion and feeling like you're actually in an ancient civilization surrounded by forests that look semi real. There's no comparison. Morrowind looks like you're walking on lifeless polygons and the people barely look better than they did in goldeneye 007 for n64. When Oblivion came out it was the best-looking video game to ever grace a screen. Not counting FMV or cut scenes of course.

    I think from that perspective, graphical enhancements actually can improve Gameplay, or at least the fun you have while playing a game. In Morrowind you have no idea where you're going as a new player because you can barely see two feet in front of your face. In Oblivion you can walk to Bruma or Cheydinhal and you can turn around and see mountains, and the imperial city, and the huge waterway around the imperial city. It just makes you feel like you're actually there and that kind of thing matters in exploration games.

    I think it's ignorant to say that raytracing or any other graphical improvement can't help improve any game's gameplay or immersion. I sure as shit think it will help a game like Elder Scrolls 6 should it be implemented. I think it can help racing games because it will make things like puddles and mud more reflective and visible and dynamic. I think it can improve any game where the look of the game affects the enjoyment of it.

    Whenever I play Morrowind now I'm just sad that Seyda Neen and Vivec don't look as nice as they do in ESO. Vivec in particular is so much easier to navigate in ESO because it's a massive city and draw distances matter a lot.

    I don't know anything about raytracing but I bet there's at least one game it improves the gameplay of.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I can agree that better graphics can make a game world more immersive. There was a big jump in immersion between Morrowind and Oblivion. I'm only saying that games can be fun and immersive without realistic graphics such as Breath of the wild. Graphics complement gameplay. Skyrim is immersive and doesn't have Ray Tracing.

    Posted April 26th by Q
    Q
     

    Sure. And Raytracing is just a stepping stone toward better graphics and will eventually be obsolete itself. I'm just saying I bet there will be an implementation for it that makes at least one game better gameplaywise. The same way graphical improvement in the past made that same Skyrim better than Morrowind even from a gameplay perspective.

    My argument against you isn't so much about raytracing, but your premise that graphical improvements can't make gameplay better. When they clearly can. Another example is simply the shift from 2d to 3d games. Super Mario 64 in 16 bit would be kinda weird (and awesome).

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I don't personally feel that immersion is part of gameplay. Whenever talking about a game I would always treat them as seperate things in the same way I would treat graphics and gameplay seperately or controls and audio seperately.

    There's obviously crossover, gameplay can be used to create immersion and graphics can be used to create immersion, but immersion itself isn't gameplay.

    In terms of what I feel raytracing could bring to gameplay, generally not a lot but as I said (or maybe meant to say but never did?) earlier in the post I can see it enhancing the gameplay of horror games. In particular I'm imagining some kind of game where you're being chased by [something] and you have to make use of mirrors or whatever to see it around corners or whatever. Like maybe you get a portable mirror you can use to look around corners. It's not exactly something that can't be done right now, but it's something that would benefit from real-time fully accurate reflections.

    Or a puzzle game relying on shadows could make good use of the fullly accurate shadows, but again not something that can't be achieved already just something that could improve from it.

    I struggle to think of anything completely new that it would bring to the table since we already have all these things and games have in the past made use of them for gameplay. It's not anywhere near something like VR which introduced a whole new way to experience and play games and that struggles to really maintain any momentum after it's second birth.

    So yea. It's something that gamers/consumers/people will notice initially and be look "Oh cool" but as it becomes the norm over time (not overnight as Mariom believes) the novelty will wear off. It's like the first time I saw a scarab blow up in Halo 3, it was so amazing, then a couple of times later it's just "That still looks nice but I'm not really noticing it anymore". That isn't a bad thing, it's just the way things are with basically every tech advancement in like . Remember when Apple popularised Smart Phones and everyone though it was amazing, now it's just the thing everyone has and no one really cares (and in fact there is a rising popularity in "dumb-phones" now that they're not the norm).

    Posted April 26th by Moonray

    When the game is literally "explore the whole map", like it is in Oblivion and Fallout 3, the immersion IS the Gameplay. I'm not saying it's that way for every game. But a little raytracing and modern visuals would certainly make the original Ocarina of Time feel a little more like I was in Hyrule rather than a pixelated hell with dying colors.

    I agree that Mario Kart 64 is still a wonderful game. So is Super Mario World and even the original SMB for nes. At the same time, many games that rely on exploration for enjoyment/gameplay can have that enjoyment and gameplay greatly enhanced by looking nicer. Whether that's having a better art style or just looking more realistic.

    Super Smash Bros Melee and MK64 wouldn't have their gameplay enhanced by graphical upgrades. Morrowind, Ocarina, and Goldeneye most certainly would. Perfect dark actually DID get a graphical upgrade and it's so much more fun than the 64 version because better clarity means I can actually hit what I'm shooting at. The lighting and draw distances are better.

    It's hit and miss. My only problem with Q is that he thinks graphics complement gameplay every time rather than just most of the time.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The differences in draw distance and immersion and feeling like you're actually in an ancient civilization surrounded by forests that look semi real. There's no comparison. Morrowind looks like you're walkming on lifeless polygons and the people barely look better than they did in goldeneye 007 for n64. When Oblivion came out it was the best-looking video game to ever grace a screen. Not counting FMV or cut scenes of course.


    I think from that perspective, graphical enhancements actually can improve Gameplay, or at least the fun you have while playing a game. In Morrowind you have no idea where you're going as a new player because you can barely see two feet in front of your face. In Oblivion you can walk to Bruma or Cheydinhal and you can turn around and see mountains, and the imperial city, and the huge waterway around the imperial city. It just makes you feel like you're actually there and that kind of thing matters in exploration games.


    I think that the Morrowind experience is served by the relatively shorter draw distances. Controlling things like how fast the player moves and how far they can see changes how the game feels - and it's up to how the game is designed in order to decide if that's for better or worse for the product that they're trying to create.

    I'm not trying to say that Bethesda would have developed the game the same way if they had access to better graphical technology. With the technology that they had, they made a game that turned those limitations into a benefit. Controlling the draw distance and the movement speed is a choice made with the intent to make Vvardenfell feel massive and labyrinthine, with mysterious and specialized locales that you stumble across by fucking adventuring, not by activating the nearest town's Eagle Vision tower so you can see all your nice waypoints on your map. The terrain is inhospitable, oppressive, almost as threatening when you're above ground as when you're in a deep cave. The limitations of the player reflect that and are designed to create that sense in the player.

    You know what I thought when I went to Frostcrag Spire and looked over at the capitol city? "Wow, the map is that small..."

    When Oblivion came out it was the best-looking video game to ever grace a screen.


    Are you smoking crack?

    Resident Evil 4, F.E.A.R., Shadow of the Colossus, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Halo 2, The Chronicles of Riddick, Metal Gear Solid 3 and Final Fantasy XII all came out before Oblivion. None of them were the chromosome-laden disaster that Oblivion was in the graphical sense.

    Edited April 26th by Cruinn-Annuin

    All the games you listed are 480p and no where near the same scale as Oblivion. Plus I did say that I wasn't including fmv or cinematics so resi 4 is out. Obviously FF12's cinematics look better than the gameplay of Oblivion. But you can walk like 30 steps and then it takes you to another area. You can walk from Anvil to Cheydinhal in Oblivion and it never cuts out.

    Also FF12 actually came out after Oblivion, thank you very much.

    Posted April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Draw distances are one of many ugly features of Morrowind that make it less immersive. Even if I agree with your argument the game still looks like ass. Boot up the Morrowind region of ESO and you'll be depressed the next time you play real Morrowind. Morrowind is a solid game with great gameplay. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved by being more immersive. A sense of dread isn't quite enough. Case in point, modders of Morrowind often improve the visuals of the game with their mods. Hence, they agree with me.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    So I get that internet people like to exaggerate but can people stop saying they get depressed playing video games. It sounds as dumb as when people get "physically sick" over in the World forum.

    Posted April 26th by Moonray

    All the games you listed are 480p


    I ask again, are you smoking crack?

    and no where near the same scale as Oblivion


    So Oblivion is big. Guild Wars is bigger. It doesn't mean that the graphics are better.

    Plus I did say that I wasn't including fmv or cinematics so resi 4 is out


    The in-game graphics for RE4 are better than Oblivion.

    Obviously FF12's cinematics look better than the gameplay of Oblivion.


    And the in-game graphics also do.

    But you can walk like 30 steps and then it takes you to another area. You can walk from Anvil to Cheydinhal in Oblivion and it never cuts out.


    So?

    Also FF12 actually came out after Oblivion, thank you very much.


    No, it didn't.

    Draw distances are one of many ugly features of Morrowind that make it less immersive.


    Draw distances are one of many unfortunate features worked with by the game design in the attempt at (and, in my opinion, succeeding at) making the game more immersive. I understand that you don't like it. Do you understand that I don't like Oblivion's draw distances being much further and making the game feel trivial to me?

    Even if I agree with your argument the game still looks like ass. Boot up the Morrowind region of ESO and you'll be depressed the next time you play real Morrowind.


    Do you know who you're talking to?

    Morrowind is a solid game with great gameplay. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved by being more immersive.


    Agreed. What I don't agree on is what makes it more immersive.

    A sense of dread isn't quite enough.


    Luckily, that's not the only thing Morrowind provides.

    Case in point, modders of Morrowind often improve the visuals of the game with their mods. Hence, they agree with me.


    OK. I've been following the OpenMW project for years and I admire what they're doing in the service of making the game more flexible, even with regard to graphics. When I play OpenMW, though, I'm still going to keep the fog and shorter draw distance because that's what the game was originally designed around and it's what works for me.

    Posted April 26th by Cruinn-Annuin

    It's a figure of speech. You know I don't joke about depression. I have it, my brother had it. You know what I'm all about. Cruinn is asking me if I smoke a frowned upon dangerous drug and you don't question that. I'm not even planning to read what he wrote in this latest reply.

    Posted April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I didn't say anything about what he said because suggesting someone is on drugs is like "are you crazy?". Saying "the graphics are depressing" is just dumb and you're not the only one who said it. It's also not a figure of speech I have ever encountered outside of this thread and if it's one that's going to become more common in the world then blegh!!!

    Posted April 26th by Moonray

    The graphics of N64 Ocarina actually are depressing. Not clinical depression, but fleeting temporary depressing. I boot up the game and it's lifeless, with dying colors and terrible-looking pixelated junk that looks worse than even most other n64 games. "Depressing" has multiple definitions, it doesn't always refer to the mental illness. Music can be depressing, art can be depressing, and seeing something that used to give you warm feelings of nostalgia look like total shit, can be depressing, especially when it was your brother's favorite game. The 3ds version has a lot more life and energy.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    Super Mario World was amazing when it came out because it was better than everything else, but playing it today, it feels like a step down from New Super Mario Bros.

    you are on crack.

    smh.

    Posted April 26th by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Yeah New Super Mario Bros is Mario on easy mode for 7 year olds. When I saw him get humongous the game became a meme to me.

    Posted April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    The OoT graphics made me feel things. Fear, tension, comfort, poignancy, potential. Depression was not one of them. Seek help.

    Posted April 26th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Maybe they did back in 1998 when they were decent by virtue of being the best available at the time. But I can relate to you to some degree on that one, Null. I find Goldeneye 007 still gives me the same chills and adrenaline today as it did the year it came out, despite looking like ass. The soundtrack is amazing. I think maybe the reason why Zelda's lifeless look bothers me so much is because it was his favorite game. It's almost like a creepy pasta booting it up.

    Still Goldeneye could greatly benefit from an Xbox Arcade Perfect Dark tier facelift, and Ocarina benefited greatly from the 3DS remaster.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I'm not really interested in the stupid discussion about 480p resident evil's graphics being better than 720p Oblivion's, but I guess I'll stop being stubborn and address this:

    Draw distances are one of many unfortunate features worked with by the game design in the attempt at (and, in my opinion, succeeding at) making the game more immersive. I understand that you don't like it. Do you understand that I don't like Oblivion's draw distances being much further and making the game feel trivial to me?

    I can understand, sure. I played Oblivion first and I'm guessing you played Morrowind first. First impressions matter a lot.

    For instance, the first Star Wars Movie or media I ever watched was Revenge of the Sith, so finding out that Anakin was Darth Vader was a plot twist to me, but not to 99 percent of people who watched the movie. I had never seen the original trilogy so I never saw that his name was mentioned there. You can imagine how much more awesome that made Revenge of the Sith for me vs anyone else who watched it. I didn't know going into it that he loses to Obi-Wan.

    I think when it comes to Skyrim, it gets even more simplistic than Oblivion did. So my standpoint on Oblivion and Skyrim is probably closer to your stand point on Morrowind and Oblivion. It changed a little too much and you have loyalty to the old one because you love it. Is that about right?

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    No. If anything has to do with my personal relationship with the game (beyond my general proclivities), it is the fact that I have much more time to think critically about Morrowind and parse out many of the intentions (successful and otherwise) of the developers.

    Edited April 26th by Cruinn-Annuin

    I'm actually planning to play Oblivion again soon. I have no intention of playing Morrowind again until OpenMW hits 1.0.

    'cause the graphics suck :)

    Edited April 26th by Cruinn-Annuin

    Honestly the thing that bothers me in Morrowind more than just about anything is the dice roll attacking. It's hard to go from playing and loving Oblivion to swinging with your sword or knife, clearly hitting your enemy, and having it do nothing because RNG. I can't play Morrowind on the PC because my wrist is shit so I'm stuck with the vanilla xbox version. Which at least runs a lot better on xbox one x than it did on regular xbox. None of the mods can help me unless I invest in a left-handed mouse which I might just do. I'm right-handed but I'm a little bit ambidextrous.

    Edited April 26th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    So I get that internet people like to exaggerate but can people stop saying they get depressed playing video games. It sounds as dumb as when people get "physically sick" over in the World forum.


    I mean depression can often be used in a way that just means "sad" even if that isn't technically what depression is. And of course with the complexity of emotions and variance in severity people can obviously get sad or even worse just from playing a game. It doesn't make sense but neither do emotions. And I never heard of anyone getting physically sick over the world forum. Getting annoyed and angry and never wanting to look at it again though, I've seen that.

    Posted April 26th by Knuckles4099

    Wow, I agree with Knuckles for once.

    Posted April 27th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    I think we've agreed quite a bit more often than it seemed, just not more recently as I've clearly been undergoing a lot of changes lately.

    Posted April 27th by Knuckles4099

    And I never heard of anyone getting physically sick over the world forum.


    A few of them have said it about things. Xhin is one.

    Posted April 27th by Moonray

    Nice to see a thread reach 100 again.

    The world forum can be a toxic place when the sexism and racism are a big part of it. But it can also be easily ignored too. Especially since you can choose to opt out of even seeing posts there in newest replies.

    Posted April 27th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king

    That's not even what I was saying was about, but I've said what I wanted to so let's not keep derailing with that.

    Posted April 27th by Moonray

    Okay but I'm confused.

    Posted April 27th by I killed Mufasa
    I killed Mufasa
    long live the king
    Load next page Load rest of pages
    Reply to: NVIDIA Reveals Old GPUs Can't Handle Raytracing, UE 4.22 Brings Raytracing to Devs, and more!
    Enter your message here

    Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
    GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on