It took less computational power to put a man on the moon than it does to make the shadows look 2.03% more realistic.
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
69 points (87.9% liked)
Gaming
7563 readers
199 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would laugh if it wasn't true. But also, people underestimate how realistic light and shadows can really sell a scene. It just shouldn't require the electricity of a refrigerator to do it.
A lot of that is just poor implementation on the developers end. They go “oh the engine we bought supports this? Well let’s do the bare minimum to enable the setting.” And you get games that don’t even look better, but run like ass.
This, but unironically
The trouble with this is that every single statement in it is true.
What do you mean you don't like seeing a perfect real time reflection of the NPC across from you in a puddle that costs you 95% of your frame rate?
Even without RTX scenery can look damn near real. But the moment there is a human in the scene, the uncanny valley fucks everything up. I don't even get it because animals can look perfect and not trigger the uncanny valley effect, but humans always do. RTX won't ever fix that.
I mean I agree but damn the new Diana jones game looks gooooood boi