Sign into an existing account

I compared Doom 3 against Quake 4 snd despite the sonewhat superior technology in Quake 4 the graphics was not better. Modern problem is that a single texture can take weeks or months to make.Probably why alternativr investment is being used in gaming that woke ESG pandering to black rock. AAA gaming has basically hit the wall in terms of graphics fidelity, a bit more hardware is not going to fix gaming.

"640k should be enough for anyone" -- Bill Gates

I don't think it is a matter of paying them, but rather the tools used are a) easy to develop on, and b) crazy high requirements.

Take for example the original nintendo super mario brothers -
https://www.truthorfiction.com/was-the-original-super-mario-bros-only-40-kb-while-modern-screenshots-of-one-frame-are-283-kb/

The programming used many tricks, but the programmers needed to work hard to get the game into the small cartridge limitations.

Another fun story:

https://jamesseibel.com/the-story-of-mel/

Older games had to rely on programmer talent to make things run well, usually involving very efficient compilers, great coding techniques, and a fantastic understanding of the hardware.

The tools of today are so advanced that much of the space of a game can be the runtime engine, rather than the game.

For example, the current microcontroller programming ecosystems have changed, from using register calls and c-like coding to graphical packages. Microchip does this now too. The IDE calls up a picture of the chip being programmed, and the user just selects the pins, sets the parameters, timers, etc. and hits compile.

The overhead has to be enormous compared to a small assembly program - just to do a single function like pin on or adc read.

With the advances in hardware, this trend will not reverse.

For example, imagine having a program that includes the entirety of chatgpt to just tell alexa to turn off the lights. That is the state of programming that I am seeing in the future.

Gone are the days of hardware efficiency.

It's a combination of devs wanting to push limits while also being lazy. In other words, wanting to do cool shit with available tech while also not wasting time on optimizing unless they have to.

Since AAA studio devs tend to work on juiced up high-end machines, that's what their games tend to be geared for. Lower settings for plebs are an afterthought.

Indie games are usually much less demanding on hardware. And also more fun, since they're more focused on making an actual game, rather than a bleeding edge tech showcase.

Trailer shows a negro female who White males call 'sir', as they obey. I'd avoid it for that alone.

If you're looking for an Unreal game, try Medieval Dynasty. No nigs. You collect resources as you build your village where you'll raise the son that will carry on your Dynasty. Females don't have their tits hanging out. No same-sex households.

Not a shooter, so it's not for everyone.

dx12 runs on win10?

It's a Unreal5 game, so the assets are going to be huge, and the eye candy is demanding on hardware.

I'm willing to bet you could run this on a 2060 or equivalent, but I can see why it needs so much video ram.

That said, this looks gay as fuck, and you should up your gaming taste.

Why the fuck do I want to spend $3-4k on a system to play games made for transexuals, women, and faggots?

The answer is I don't, my system is good enough to play games from before they were faggified. And it's good enough to let me work.

Take this as an opportunity to stop playing as many games.

It's EA, it's programmed by monkies for monkies.

Probably not. Devs just lazy on optimization.

Targets these days should always be based on at least 100 fps at 1440p and 4k resolution on lower end and higher end graphics cards respectively (current generation).