They could add they Aether. I’m not going to lie though, the beauty of minecraft is not the content. Its the emergent systems from redstone and the like. Unless I am mistaken and Notch intended for people to make functioning RAM and computers inside minecraft.
Fsr frame gen was just released. Dlss frame gen wasn’t perfect either at release (even now it still has ui issues).
Fsr frame gen for me looks pretty impressive for a rushed release. I’ll need to see how it evolves and if amd can solve the antilag+ latency with frame gen and enhance smoothness.
I also want to see how amd can enhance fsr upscaling image quality, as currently the worse image quality compared to dlss frame gen is because of fsr beeing less good than dlss upscaling.
For consoles, well it’s another reason for devs to create unoptimised games, while giving the 60 fps console players could “finally” experience, and want with the curent gen.
However on another side it’s also a way to get better smoothness (well see), at at negligible (for console players) image quality loss. Most console players play on a TV, pretty far from it. So quality won’t affect them much.
Guarantee you the FSR-DLSS gap will be filled shortly after AMD has competitive AI coprocessors on their cards. People say a lot about all the training DLSS does on NVIDIAs cloud blah blah but the real reason it’s better is because it runs on hardware that is otherwise idle and so can just do more without eating into latency or performance. It’s the same reason XeSS on Intel GPUs is better than FSR.
What would really be impressive is if AMD can get FSR to leverage the AI cores on all three cards. If the goal of being “open” is trying to nullify NVIDIAs advantage then that would go a long way to killing DLSS as a point of distinction.
That has got to be one of the most miserable jobs you can do with a white collar. Imagine trying to asspull Watsonian explanations for questions that only have Doylist answers to people who will mail you anthrax if you just tell them the truth, which is that Nintendo doesn’t give a shit about lore.
Yup. I’m a fan of lore in a lot of series, but that’s not why I play Zelda.
I play Zelda because it’s fun. I like the creative puzzles that aren’t super hard, but hard enough to require a little bit of thinking. I like that there’s progression, but no leveling system, so a lot of the progression is learning to use new tools. I like the silly side quests.
I’ve never really been interested in Zelda lore, so I’m honestly okay with things not quite lining up. I guess I see each entry as a separate universe where Link saves Zelda in a different way each time. Zelda games rarely have direct sequels, and I think that was the real mistake this time around. Just let me fight Ganon or whatever in a new cycle every time, I don’t need any kind of story coherency.
Lore has always been on the back burner when it comes to the Zelda franchise, and I imagine is a major part of why Nintendo so rarely makes any direct sequels to Zelda games in the first place, because they really don't seem to like continuity when it comes to Zelda. The only reason Nintendo even wrote Hyrule Historia and established an "official" timeline for the series (which didn't even make sense at the time, and makes even less sense with the games released after) is because fans wouldn't shut up about it.
Haha, o god, no. Bit a guy like him would probably not even for a second think about working for them even of they would give him 100% of the funding they receive now (50k?)
He heavily endorsed the bad decision made by Unity and his comments really didn’t help the situation so this is a welcome decision. Of course this will likely not change Unity’s direction.
I saw recent studies show that Facebook is no longer cool to younger generations, and the older generations are either not remotely interested in VR, and/or aren’t interested in Meta out of principle (security, ethics, etc). I know that’s hand-wavy and anecdotal, but I’m trying to gather who is going to buy these in big enough numbers to make them profitable. Probably just another vector that they want to hoard your data from.
The worst thing about jagex is their management. They are so out of touch and only see runescape as something to squeeze money from. They should be happy they have generated as much revenue as they have from such an old game. Last I checked it was pulling in hundreds of millions in profit.
@chloyster good, he's been a plague on the industry. When you see your customers as wallets with legs you are bad for the people and bad for the company.
Standard tactic when making unpopular changes, and a company would really like to keep them. Sacrificial CEO gets replaced, to make it look like things changed.
eurogamer.net
Najnowsze