The recent showcase of the Unity Engine presents some ultra realistic character models, but are they too realistic for gaming?
Save a bucket load on this massive curved gaming monitor- with the potential of even more savings in LG's Gaming Week
KnowTechie writes: "The GameScent is a unique way to add immersion to your games. Thanks to its HDMI and 3.5mm jack, the device is versatile, so you can use it across your consoles and PC. However, it would be great to see a new range of scents since there are only six, and many smell similar to each other."
At a time where GPUs are more available than ever, it appears as though PC gamers aren't upgrading as often as they used to.
For me, the primary concern with new software is how it's often exclusive to a new series. This not only frustrates me but also raises questions about the lifespan of the hardware. With GPUs no longer offering significant performance boosts, they rely heavily on software enhancements.
However, this reliance is contingent on developer support. When the new 5000 series hits shelves, it's likely that the 4000 series won't be compatible with Nvidia's new software. This would negate any advantage it had over the 3000 series, leaving one to wonder why they upgraded in the first place. And the same will keep happening as we move through the generations.
AMD is a bit better in that regard as they often use open standards, which offer wider compatibility. However, they have even less developer support, and their software solutions tend to lag behind Nvidia by at least one whole generation. So if you have a 3000 series from Nvidia right now, it doesn't really make that much sense to upgrade to the 7000 series from AMD because feature-wise they are pretty similar level.
oh my god, these "Here's why" articles are always about the most obvious shit ever, like do people actually read these?
because they last for generations. You don't need to upgrade every 1, 2 or even 3 years. I went from a 1080ti which served me so well to a 3080 with years in between. I won't even consider upgrading until the 5000 series at the earliest, but will most likely wait for the 6000 series.
How realistic does a character have to be before the morality of killing in games finds legitimacy? Throw in realistic reactions and emotions and suddenly you have a very interesting discussion IMO. I had this discussion many years ago about GTA. If a mother is pushing a pram with a baby in it and they look real, is there a case to be made 'morally' that hurting them is reprehensible? Some of you may remember me bringing it up and it's one of the reasons I'm not entirely against the thought, even though religious groups and politicians have abused the conversation for their own ends.
I feel we DO have to face up to this idea and ask ourselves how much a video game can effect a persons view of mortality. We need to stop immediately seeing it as a threat to our beloved hobby and start asking the difficult questions. Definitely amazing tech, but developers are going to have to start justifying violence, as Naughty Dog so brilliantly demonstrated in The Last Of Us.
Its not something i can simply put on here in the comments for the short term so i will just say this
"at the end of the day its still a video game"
If this is a dumb question I apologise but anyway what kind of hardware is this tech demo running on? can a nextgen console have the power to render something this realistic?
They're just body scans, and there's no such thing as too realistic. It's called progress. We're not going backwards, are we?
in niko bellic's voice........"Not F****** Funny"