Ray-Tracing ONLY??!?!?!?

[QUAKETALLICA]

WTF were they thinking?

I was excited to play this through Game Pass. It doesn't tell you until after the massive 120 GB download that, oh BY THE WAY you have to have hardware ray-tracing GPU or the game doesn't even work, at all.

I mean, what? I have never heard of anything else ever asking something so ridiculous. Complete lack of support for anybody with lower end hardware? And I say "lower end" in massive quotes there, because I'm able to run most other games of the last year or two still at high graphics at 60 FPS at 1080p full HD with a GTX 1060 (provided they're well optimized...Stalker 2 doesn't count). Even if I had to play on low settings to run it, I don't mind because even today's "low" settings is still graphically very impressive.

But nevermind saying "intended for ray tracing" or whatever, no you can't even start up the game at all unless you have at minimum 2060. Sheesh. It's one thing to have terrible performance, but to not even let you run the .exe? Dang that's a new level of rejection.

From gameplay videos, it doesn't even look like gameplay, the faces looks so photo-realistic I thought I was looking at a movie. Scary good textures and modeling. Too bad the entire thing is unplayable now because of their focus on elitist hardware.

And the funniest part is, it looks worse with "path-tracing" on anyway. Not that I had even heard of path-tracing before this game. It's an ultra ray tracing where the graphics are 100% ray-tracing and nothing else, whereas before they were a mix of normal graphics rendering and ray tracing.

[Vir7ue]

Did you really need to make a whole new thread for this when there's several ongoing discussions.

It's time to upgrade from your 8 year old card if you want to play the full breadth of games. More and more games will be RT only from now on to save on dev time and costs.

The new Intel Arc cards seem to be a good, affordable entry level option.

[Dagtag]

this is a problem you yourself created by not looking at the minimum requirements.

also, what is elitist about requiring aq SIX YEAR OLD GPU?

[QUAKETALLICA]

Originally posted by Dagtag:

this is a problem you yourself created by not looking at the minimum requirements.

also, what is elitist about requiring aq SIX YEAR OLD GPU?

Because it's unnecessary for literally every other game out there, so why would I upgrade? Only people who do are enthusiasts who just have to have 4K or 1440p or high refresh rates.

You say "six years" as if the passage of time should make any difference. The 20-series has basically no real graphical advantage over the 10-series except that it could in theory run ray-tracing (albeit so poorly and with such high performance costs, and usually thrown in games as an afterthought anyway) that it was entirely pointless.

I usually ignore "min requirements" because even when they say a CPU or GPU above my specs, my machine usually runs just fine anyway. They claim "minimum" but it's really more of a recommendation 99% of the time. Nobody else has ever been so audacious as to actually refuse to start at all unless you have a gimmicky RTX card.

In my defense, they also didn't even announce it would be RTX-only apparently until 2 days before release. Seems like a bit of an oversight.

[Dagtag]

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

Originally posted by Dagtag:

this is a problem you yourself created by not looking at the minimum requirements.

also, what is elitist about requiring aq SIX YEAR OLD GPU?

Because it's unnecessary for literally every other game out there, so why would I upgrade? Only people who do are enthusiasts who just have to have 4K or 1440p or high refresh rates.

You say "six years" as if the passage of time should make any difference.

I usually ignore "min requirements" because even when they say a CPU or GPU above my specs, my machine usually runs just fine anyway. They claim "minimum" but it's really more of a recommendation 99% of the time. Nobody else has ever been so audacious as to actually refuse to start at all unless you have a gimmicky RTX card.

In my defense, they also didn't even announce it would be RTX-only apparently until 2 days before release. Seems like a bit of an oversight.

its not an oversight, the specs literally indicated exactly that. requirements arent just a "guidance", if you ignore them you do so at your own risk.

and yes, the passage of time DOES make a difference, especially when it comes to software and hardware. don't be ridiculous.

you are part of the reason why games are being held back because "its not necessary" like dude, you are in an ever evolving hobby, a hobby that is quite luxurious and requires keeping up with the times.

[Sharkon]

not sure about the 1060 but I think a 1080ti (11GB) would run this game just fine without RT. well, it is what it is. I'm on a 3080 at the moment but my son playing most things in 2024 just fine on my old 9900k/32GB/1080ti rig. no Indy for him though.

[Molesworth.Houghton]

Funny fact is, and i wrote it in another discussion, you'll need a very expensive high end system to make it visible and of course playable - with 30 until 60 frames. Very smooth playable (more than 60 frames is the title with a lower budget system of € 800, as i use some of them.

[Dagtag]

Originally posted by Molesworth.Houghton:

Funny fact is, and i wrote it in another discussion, you'll need a very expensive high end system to make it visible and of course playable - with 30 until 60 frames. Very smooth playable (more than 60 frames is the title with a lower budget system of € 800, like i use.

thats just a straight up lie....

RTGI is visible by default

[QUAKETALLICA]

Originally posted by Sharkon:

not sure about the 1060 but I think a 1080ti (11GB) would run this game just fine without RT. well, it is what it is. I'm on a 3080 at the moment but my son playing most things in 2024 just fine on my old 9900k/32GB/1080ti rig. no Indy for him though.

Even if I had to run on medium-low @ 30 FPS I really wouldn't mind, It's not a shooter, right? I only care about a good frame rate in FPS games. In the adventure genre 30 is good enough.

[Cman1337]

People really need to let go of their almost century old 1000 Series. I switched this year to a new PC and it was the best descision I made this year gaming wise.

[Sharkon]

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

Originally posted by Sharkon:

not sure about the 1060 but I think a 1080ti (11GB) would run this game just fine without RT. well, it is what it is. I'm on a 3080 at the moment but my son playing most things in 2024 just fine on my old 9900k/32GB/1080ti rig. no Indy for him though.

Even if I had to run on medium-low @ 30 FPS I really wouldn't mind, It's not a shooter, right? I only care about a good frame rate in FPS games. In the adventure genre 30 is good enough.

it's a I would say 90% adventure game in the spirit of old Lucas Arts with some forced action trough story events or combat by players choice. there is pretty much always a stealth/disguise option, however I liked the action in this one.

played in 1440p ultra settings with 60fps cap just fine.

30fps might look bad because of the first person view. it doesn't matter much for 3rd person games with a proper motion blur implementation.

[max]

OP, I find it ironic that your username has QUAKE in it, because q3a was one of the first games to require a GPU, and people were saying "what? no software rasterizer? id are crazy".

[Sharkon]

Originally posted by max:

OP, I find it ironic that your username has QUAKE in it, because q3a was one of the first games to require a GPU, and people were saying "what? no software rasterizer? id are crazy".

Indiana Jones is also running on idtech7 engine. they keep doing it.

[QUAKETALLICA]

Originally posted by max:

OP, I find it ironic that your username has QUAKE in it, because q3a was one of the first games to require a GPU, and people were saying "what? no software rasterizer? id are crazy".

As I've said many times before, it's really not comparable. Graphics and computer processing power improved very quickly in the 90s and 00s. Just 3-5 years makes a massive difference. Today is different. There is literally no difference in graphics between today and 5 years ago. There is a nominal difference between today and 10 years ago. Graphics already peaked a long time ago and it's increasingly diminishing returns.

I don't even think RTX is an upgrade. In every scenario I've seen it applied, it literally looks worse. Compare even Indy RTX vs PTX, and the PTX has worse shadows and lighting and fewer reflections. It looks goofy how shadows jump around constantly with any slight movement. Ray-tracing is not designed to look good in games. It's designed to make developers' jobs lazier by having one global lighting instead of actually designing lighting and shadows for the map (baked in). It's the same lazy attitude of "who cares about optimizing file size or load times because now hard drives are less expensive?"

If you want to talk about ironic, Quake 3 was famous for Carmack discovering revolutionary new ways of optimizing the game to run faster.

[max]

Originally posted by QUAKETALLICA:

I don't even think RTX is an upgrade. In every scenario I've seen it applied, it literally looks worse. Compare even Indy RTX vs PTX, and the PTX has worse shadows and lighting and fewer reflections. It looks goofy how shadows jump around constantly with any slight movement. Ray-tracing is not designed to look good in games. It's designed to make developers' jobs lazier by having one global lighting instead of actually designing lighting and shadows for the map (baked in). It's the same lazy attitude of "who cares about optimizing file size or load times because now hard drives are less expensive?"

Misinformation.
I do find it odd how (and why) people manage to write whole paragraphs of just wrong stuff (and I mean all of it). Whatever. Go, get some education and/or experience in the industry.

If you want to talk about ironic, Quake 3 was famous for Carmack discovering revolutionary new ways of optimizing the game to run faster.

What ways are those? And why it's ironic?

[Ted]

Sigh... another one.

If you cant afford to upgrade you GPU more frequently than every half a decade, perhaps PC gaming isn't for you and it is time to invest in a console instead?