Higher resolutions are holding back development of software I think.
New games won't do anything innovative or cool because they will instead be focusing on doing the same shit they did before except at 4k resolution which takes a shitload of resources to run at that res.
Laptops and personal computers in general don't seem to accomplish more actual work than computers 10 years older than present day ones.
Muh screenspace. Muh resolution.
On the other hand I think a lot of graphics card innovation would never have happened if not for two things: 1. higher resolutions 2. bitcoin mining
We just need to get rid of the high resolutions and then use the super powerful hardware at a much lower resolution to do amazing things.
The human eye can't even see above 72 pixels per inch.
I wonder what our games could be doing if we were running them at 1680x1050 or at 1920x1080 but with dual-titan x or similar cards. Maybe we'd finally have entirely destructible environments by now where you can actually dig into and deform terrain and objects, persistent player corpses, etc.
Not an argument.
why are gaming niggers so obsessed with digging simulators? go outside and dig a fucking hole. kill some niggers and leave them in a field, there you have some persistent corpses.
Modern gaymers are the worst fucking thing to happen to computers
We could have real time ray tracing by now. With all the bells and whistles used in still images. If games would still run in 240p.
Not GPU problems.
You guys do realize home/personal computers have always appealed you gamers looking to push graphical fidelity since the Commodore 64 set the bar for gaming, not just in terms of hardware (remind that the VIC-II existed alongside CGA graphic and it wasn't until 1987 when IBM would finally get something comparable with VGA) but also in terms of marketing
Appealing to gamers has always been an important part of the industry, gamers are drones who always buy the latest and greatest shit, thus pushing development and funding better hardware. In addition, tech demos have always been convenient ways of illustrating a computers capabilities to various marketing segments, including business and scientific applications.
Vidya is made for consoles. Destructible environments have been possible since at least Red Faction (longer if you count 2d).
The high resolutions only affect the polygon count, the real issue is that destructible environments strain the CPU excessively. A big part of how something like Quake could run on the Pentium is because literally every single line-of-sight calculation was using a huge amount of prebaked data. Occlusion Culling was also prebaked too. In a dynamic game engine, you cant prebake that kind of thing, so it's much more difficult to make.
Game engine development is really stagnating because every single game now comes out on Unity / Unreal 4. And even when it doesn't use one of the big two, the engine it's using will come with the same middleware as all the other engines, which is why so many of them seem the same... they're literally all just using the same premade components.
Carmack finally gave up?
Carmack works on VR now, and the last idtech engine, idtech 6, and while being better than the rest of the shit that gets pushed out it still uses the same middleware as everything else. The only people who are using idtech are id itself, and even then, Bethesda jews are making them release QC on the Saber Engine, which is complete shit and riddled with bugs, and is probably only being done to keep the Saber Tech team alive (also a child company of Zenimax). So the only other idtech 6 game that is on the horizon is the new Wolfenstien game.
Really the issue is that a game engine has become incredibly complicated, and so it's become such an investment that engine development has stagnated, where the only truly viable engine development is to write a one-size-fits-all engine like Unreal / Unity and licence it out to as many people as possible. As such engines that are specialized for their games (which still would achieve much superior results in 2017) are much fewer and farther between. Idtech 6 is a good example of this kind of thing.
I wonder if he ever gets fed up with them and leaves to create his own thing. He isn't nearly old enough to tolerate compromises like those for long.
The problem is that as computer hardware improves AAA developers are always being pressured into adopting the latest and greatest technologies, thus game budgets have to rise exponentially while returns remain roughly the same (most AAA shit has always been expected to sell at around 3 million copies at the lower end and around 10 million at the upper end). The rise of game engines are a response to this. Game engines are there to keep game budgets stable as technology improves
Or you could just be Nintendo and not give a fuck about technology past a bare minimum people expect and still sell 10 to 20 million units per game you push out. Then there's companies like Rockstar that make their engines in-house like the R.A.G.E engine to strike a balance between easing dev costs while allowing a higher degree of flexibility.
It doesn't help that the games they make nowadays aren't very fun. Even when they get these game engines to ease their developement time and effort. They still can't get into fun or good game design, it's always half assed for the gameplay part.
AAA games are like Summer Blockbusters or pop music. Lame, mass-produces, easy to push out, and are eaten up by the normalfag masses. If anything game engines just make it easier to mass produce AAA games while "faking" having put actual effort into it
Marketing departments taking over is to blame. Even agenda-pushing is just yet another means to an end for the same soulless husks with dollar signs for eyes. When it's a glorified tech demo that must be 50% pre-sold through "early access" and "public betas" and later milked to death with DLCs and microtransactions what else can you expect?
Another issue is that games nowadays are entirely presentation based because that's just the most marketable. It's easier to create flashy cinematic game trailers if the graphics look the part. Graphics are consuming game budgets while gameplay gets pushed aside because, again, it's just more marketable, not necessarily because its fun. A game can be downright shit in gameplay and mindless normalfags will just accept it as long as there's enough eye candy to keep them distracted.
They should just stop struggling and switch to outright porn tbh. Especially considering VR is on the rise.
It's not an argument, you're just wrong, what you said has no validity.
The MAFIAA is holding back the PC industry. IBM gave us 4k a decade and a half ago but (((Windows))) users can't handle it.
where? I don't own even a square inch of land. Even if I purchased my own grave plot I'd have to deal with something like a 'housing authority', telling me I can't dig around it.
They are switching to outright gambling, instead. It's even less work for even more profits.
Is that why the gaming market is flooded with shitty indie 2d sidescrollers?
Get your eyes checked, jesus fucking christ.
END THE TYRANNY OF RASTER SCREENS, YEAR OF THE VECTORS NOW
they are actually way worse for productivity because they use nigger 16:9 aspect ratio
also huge drawing distance, where you could see beautiful landscapes far away
I remember reading about voxel-based rendering engines and how they will revolutionize everything. Also, there were video demos with pretty good atomic detail and destruction physics running on top-ish computers 7 years ago. Where is all this now?
They are with all the other things that cost more money to make than they will ever bring profit.
Moore's law will reach a massive wall in the coming years, maybe in a stagnant period, time for optimization (in every area now, not only games) will come.
Voxel engines are literally atom simulators. You're not going to simulate "big" 3d landscapes with physics at interactive rates on any of our computers.
noone can be bothered to implement it in C++ so it won't go anywhere
yes but those voxels/atoms can be pretty big, million/billion times bigger than true atoms
The standard printed brochure is printed at 300dpi. A 26 inch monitor (studies show that this is the ideal size for productivity) at 4k has 170dpi. Reading comprehension on monitors is worse than print (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035512001127). Coincidence? I think not. The real meme was HD. We've had 4k monitors since 2001 but, because of the focus on making the PC a "multimedia device" we've gotten a shitty, arbitrary resolution at a weird compromise aspect ratio. When I get a cheap 26 inch, 4:3, 8k monitor that doesn't give me bloodshot eyes I will be happy to call any further advance in monitor technology superfluous. Until that time we have a long way to go and all the booty bothered gay men can go play with their joysticks and weep.
I don't think you even understand what an atom is, user.
Destructible environments are taxing on the CPU, and CPU performance improvements have gone to rest on the farm. Only multithreading and new architectures can save us. POWER is the future we need, RIP 68k
Still playing on PS2 and Gamecube. What 4k. Gaming is dead regardless.
The gaming industry died with the Internet. Now that the barrier of entry for making games is extremely low, there is a lot of low-effort shit being put out at low cost but high volume for a quick buck.
Before the Internet, games had to be delivered physically, which meant shelves at computer stores. That shit cost a lot of money, so the game had to be good or else the developers would lose a lot of money on delivery costs. Obviously publishers handled the delivery, but they didn't do it for free.
Thanks to UE4/Unity, every purple-haired faggot is a game developer and unfortunately they are getting away with their low-quality shit. In order for legitimate developers to compete in this oversaturated market, they have to release low-quality games and market the shit out of them. So overall, we get shitty games no matter what.
Bull shit. Indies didn't make EA or Bethesda bad.
They were never good to begin with, Holla Forumseddit.
This lacks logical reasoning. A good dev will make all those shitty purple-haired game developers look like the shit they are. It just needs to appear a politically incorrect, funny and talented developer. I know good games take a lot of money and effort, but now there's patreon, bitcoins, and so making a good game shouldn't be a huge problem.
Actually I don't know what the problem with game industry is. Someone pls explain
You need exposure for sales. The gaming media is fully Jewed and will refuse to give you coverage unless you're pushing their anti-white propaganda. The only game that got past their blockade was Hatred because the Jews overplayed their hand and Gabe personally threw them a curveball in their attempt to ratchet up outrage to the point all stores would ban it. If you don't see why they were so flustered about Hatred, while it was an edge simulator, it was also a white man violently removing the human parasites from his neighborhood. Same thing for youtubers. I work on a game with a clueless marketing department that got really lucky the game was popular with LPers as they drove millions of sales and tens of thousands of steam reviews of a game few would have noticed otherwise. The Jews put extreme pressure on these guys to not cover games that aren't pushing their agenda. Take what they did to JonTron as an example of their strength. So game devs just bend over and put in a strong black woman with an afro, magical superjews, #RefugeesWelcome, etc..
keep crying sperg
I want to believe there is a way of bypassing the marxist jew and still do a great game. Maybe making a controversial game which gaming news will anyway publish (with bad publicity but still publicity) ie: the main character is a nazi time traveller
They know not to cover manufactured outrage. They only did it with Hatred because they thought it was a battle they could win and gain the power to ban games from stores. Even a grass-roots success will be difficult to get off the ground as they control almost all gaming forums and will kill the threads. Like how with GG we were basically stonewalled by a global network of hotpockets until Total Asscancer broke the blockade.
I'm just here waiting for real-time radiosity .
Well Nintendo doesn't fall for the 4k games meme and they get nothing but shit from the gaming community at large because their systems are "weak" and their games don't have ultra HD graphics, so what the fuck do you guys want?
The Switch seems to be really successful though.
Mario Odyssey actually looks nicer than most games on much more powerful systems because they didn't fucking destroy it with shaders. Maybe we've given devs too much hardware.
It's important to notice that resolutions actually lowered when we moved to standards like HD and LCD screens, this is because CRT monitors had vastly superior tech compared to LCD's and only today are LCD monitors coming out that are comparable to the high end CRT monitors that were coming out in the early 2000's. You could (and still can) buy CRT monitors that go up to 2048x1536 and see GPU benchmarks from the early 2000's for higher than 1080p resolutions in games. LCD monitors resulted in a huge lack of advancement since we had to scrap all of the progress that was going on at the cutting edge of CRT technology, and only now is LCD a mature enough platform to have screens that have superior specs than CRT's from over 10 years ago. Sometimes I wonder what CRT's would be like if we kept advancing them...
The color and whitish-ghostly spectrum on LCD still sucks.
My ideal monitor would be electrowetting-epaper. It was being developed by Liquavista back in the day, but they got bought by Samsung and haven't done shit.