Absolutely how I felt. The RTX off shots have a more consistent style. Even textures on the RTX off shots are more interesting. youtu.be/aM_gzfAMdNs?t=50 they just scramble half the tv’s instead of at least putting an interesting texture up.
The only really interesting thing in the whole video is the new HEV suit model, because it’s a new model not because it’s RTX’ed.
Honestly, personally, I find that the worst way. Especially since you could get stuck in a dialogue forever. I don’t find that a flaw in the AI, the AI is doing exactly what it’s supposed to, the issue is the open-ended nature of the system. I don’t want to get RSI from just trying to get a key from an AI that was told never to give me the key.
I’m not sure Microsoft even thinks about gaming handhelds at this point. It’s not a huge marketshare. I think the steam deck at most sold 3 million units. The market is still real small.
It’s not that easy to do but you could probably invest some time and create a system for that. I wonder how much it’d actually be used though. This would only really effect a subset of PC players.
When you said we wouldn’t have the games that influence the industry today. The argument only works as a point if you don’t think the argument that doom directly influences the industry today. Otherwise you would have argued that which is a stronger point.
Doom only had a huge impact on the industry because it was very small and they started licensing out their engine with groundbreaking tech. The industry is huge now.
So I said 1) doom had a huge impact on the industry because it, (the industry) was small and they started licensing out their engine. Now that the industry is bigger it’s not really a good comparison to any game.
You then said:
Let’s say that didn’t have a big impact though, to say Doom didn’t? I don’t even know where to begin. Doom + Quake basically shaped the next 20 years of FPS’s with goldeneye being one of the other major iterators on how MP was handled.
I literally said the opposite and said Doom had a huge impact on the industry.
So I made that clear:
I will say that Doom is industry changing but again because it was so small. […] I’d say Doom’s offshoots are more influential than actual Doom at this point.
This is absolutely true and you agreed by saying:
You would not have doom off-shoots without doom. You’re really reaching here to disagree with me over something that is pretty much consensus. 
We agree Doom was industry-changing, but Doom is currently not as directly influential to the industry today. We both agree and you state that’s somehow a point of disagreement.
So I fail to see why you are pulling at this small nitpick part that we both agree on when I’ve made a slew of points in the comments above that you ignored. If you want to engage, try to do so in terms of having a conversation rather than just trying to point out something you feel is wrong. Take into context the things I’ve said, don’t just focus on one little thing you think you disagree with. If you actually disagree with what I said, please be clear in how you think I’ve said something because it might just be a point of clarity rather than actual disagreement.
Sure but I am talking about games as a whole. You see more cinematography today in most games than you saw in MGS 1998. In fact, MGS 1998 has cutscenes and it has gameplay. Games today are removing that divide. Your gameplay is in your cutscene. In MGS1 you’d hit a video and walk away for 10 minutes while listening to it and it’d be fine. Today you hit a cut scene and you stay because you’ll have to shoot someone as the conversation breaks down or the building collapses and you have to jump out.
That’s what I am talking about when I say cinematic masterpieces. They don’t have jarring cuts between a cutscene and gameplay and they feel like cinematic moments while you are never taken out of the gameplay. Eventually, we’ll get to the point where you could show a game in a theater and people wouldn’t know the difference.
I’m literally not disagreeing that Doom was industry-changing. I said it multiple times. You seem to be just reaching through any hole to continue to argue about something we both agree on.
Yeah, honestly, I doubt BG3 is going to cover the same ground for a lot of players. I don’t think people are going to play BG3 and expect more from Starfield. People will understand that they are far different games and BG3’s influence is probably going to stay in turn-based CRPGs rather than being an industry-wide influential game.
Doom did have a significant impact on the industry but only because the industry was small. Doom 2016 was released and people said it was “industry” changing but realistically counter-strike, valorant, and other FPSs are the same as before. I am just cautious between the whole industry changing and realistically only transforming a small subset.
True industry-changing games can be felt today. I will say that Doom is industry changing but again because it was so small. Half-Life 2, was that industry changing? Frankly, between Half-Life and Half-Life 2, the first feels far more influential to me. I’d say Doom’s offshoots are more influential than actual Doom at this point. Minecraft feels industry changing and was around that time indie game development got huge. In part, because of Minecraft’s success. Mass Effect though? I remember it being called a fine RPG with terrible combat mechanics. I think people far remember more about Mass Effect 2 and 3 rather than Mass Effect in 2007. Your article was written in 2021 and the only other one I found was written in 2012 and talked about Mass Effect 3’s ending and how it changed the industry because Bioware listened to fans and caved to change it.
Actually, let me put it this way. An industry-influential game is a game that any game developer should absolutely play even if they are making a console or PC game or mobile game. It doesn’t truly exist anymore but even if you cut off the mobile game developers and stick t just console or PC, BG3 is probably not industry-influential because someone making Slime Rancher or Survival Crafting games doesn’t really need to have knowledge from BG3. BG3 will probably influence RPG games and probably solely RPG games. That’s a subset of games that a lot of developers do not need to worry about. I do not need to go rush out and play BG3 in order to build any game.
See, that’s what I am talking about. Mass Effect 1 didn’t have a huge impact on the industry as a whole. Doom only had a huge impact on the industry because it was very small and they started licensing out their engine with groundbreaking tech. The industry is huge now.
I remember a lot of people were saying Half-Life: Alyx was a huge industry changer and that it would prove that games are far more enjoyable in VR. It is the best-reviewed VR game on Steam. Yet, now, VR is essentially dead.
I remember when people were saying PUBG just changed the entire industry and we’d never look at it the same again. Which honestly, PUBG did have a large but temporary impact on the games industry. A lot of battle royals came out after. Now though, you’d be lucky to find a successful battle royal release in the last 2 years.
I’ll certainly play it when I can but a 20+ hour game commitment is not what I am honestly looking for anymore. I like far shorter experiences. So overall, it feels like counting the chickens before they hatch. Is Baldur’s Gate 3 really going to stay in people’s minds? Is it going to influence the next games that come out? Are AAA studios building more classic isometric-inspired RPGs because of it?