• LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ugh games of this era are gonna age like milk with this forced upscaling and blurry TAA smear shite.

    More compression and upscaling… How about just better graphics? How about you make a console that can do path tracing that you can get going with a fairly cheap PC setup.

    All these years and these consoles still run 720p30fps like the PS3, but it’s ok with some people because it’s using AI to be dishonest and not just lying like back in the good old days with fish AI.

    • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      We don’t even need better graphics. What they’re capable of now is already more than we really need.

      I want better/easier tools available for devs.

      • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I just want better games, that arent focused on turned me into a cash generator for piece of shit companies. I just want to have fun again.

    • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      Forced upscaling and blurry TAA is compensating for the fact that they can’t push graphics much further on the hardware we have. The current hardware progression has stagnated, combined with the fact that we are seeing more diminishing returns in graphics as they improve, requiring more power to deliver less of a noticeable difference.

      But it doesn’t mean these games won’t look great when you disable the fakeness and run it with brute force GPU power 10 years from now.

      I honestly think the current graphics we can achive are fine and where the true improvements should come from are better animation and actually good art direction.

      • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think the primary reason for the GPU stagnation has been the AI / GPU compute bubble over the past 5 years.

        So much on-die space has been diverted away from raw rasterisation power towards CUDA, that it has artificially held back GPU progress.

        When we do see the current AI bubble burst (and it does feel like we’re fast approaching that point, due to all the recent incestuous business dealings), hopefully we can see some innovation return to the sector.

      • tomatoely@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m no expert on the matter, but I know this yt channel argues that the technology is already available. The thing is, big players like unreal engine devs make sub-optimal decisions when implementing these new features, leaving a lot of games being blurry and/or mal-ajusted simply by not knowing any better. Of course, art direction will always be important for a games graphics, but when the vast majority of tools available make things look bad by default, it makes sense that people will assume a better result is just not available yet.

        • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s the guy who’s asking for a million dollars to “fix” unreal engine 5 despite having 0 programming experience and sends out dcma strikes for any videos that call him out on it, lol

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Idk his render pipeline breakdown videos seem fairly in-depth. Is it just mumbo-jumbo? I saw some discussion where some devs seemed to acknowledge the perspective but say basically past 10 years of graphics make non-deferred render pipelines utterly unfeasible and thus MSAA, not to mention the issues that TAA “solves” like particularly fine geometry (see guitar strings in TLOUpt.2) or shimmering on stuff that can’t be optimized e.g. hair.

            Frankly though I think in practice the difference between graphics in 2015 and 2025 is negligible compared to the difference between TAA (or DLAA/FSR/XeSS/FXAA/SMAA) and x4 MSAA. The only that comes even close is Path Tracing in CP2077.

            I agree he seems like a sketchy af grifter, but I’ve not seen a single good rebuttal of his actual points, and even if he was a grifter, that doesn’t invalidate what he’s saying.

            That Half-Life Alyx render in flatscreen with MSAA looks better than practically any game I’ve seen.

            • tomalley8342@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Idk his render pipeline breakdown videos seem fairly in-depth. Is it just mumbo-jumbo?

              Not especially, but it’s deceivingly surface level and doesn’t (and can’t) get into why those decisions might have been made by the programmers. The big issue is that because of his lack of experience and insight into why certain decisions were made, he somehow comes to the bizarre conclusion that there is a set of rendering techniques that are either:

              • Being hidden from us by “them” to sell hardware
              • Have become lost arcane knowledge because modern renderer architectures are by and large incompetent

              Frankly though I think in practice the difference between graphics in 2015 and 2025 is negligible compared to the difference between TAA (or DLAA/FSR/XeSS/FXAA/SMAA) and x4 MSAA. The only that comes even close is Path Tracing in CP2077.

              “Modern rendering features are expensive and not worth it” is a reasonable take, but it’s not what he’s pushing.

              I agree he seems like a sketchy af grifter, but I’ve not seen a single good rebuttal of his actual points, and even if he was a grifter, that doesn’t invalidate what he’s saying.

              The examples he demonstrates in some of his videos are “not false”, at least to the extent that he does click on some buttons on unreal engines and it does behave the way he says he does. So in this way it appears to a casual viewer that his “actual points” can not be refuted. But the grift isn’t in what he shows, it’s in the massive gap between what he shows and what he says afterwards.