Comment on Hope you weren’t planning to play PhysX games on Nvidia’s new 50-series GPUs

Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Wow. I probably have it have played 4 or 5 on that entire list. And none of them in the past 5 or do years.

  It’s still a shitty thing to do for sure. Maybe there will be a new “thing” that starts getting used instead? Ray tracing has gotten way more coverage than PhysX ever did, and imo is like 3% as good or interesting.

  Physics actually have gameplay interactions that matter. Ray tracing looks nice, but is so absolutely expensive computationally that (imo) is not even CLOSE to being worth the effort if turning on, even with compatible hardware.

  Give us better physics, games! My main time sink rn is Rocket League, and that game is literally nothing but physics. Mostly simple physics, but stuff behaving in a logical way makes my brain a lot happier than better lighting ever did.

  I like when y’all grass became an actual object that could be moved around by players, or when tossing an item on the ground actually does it tossed down and colliding with other objects while texting to them appropriately (as in fire starting, or weight holding something down a certain amount). That stuff is potentially game creating, definitely feature drinking.

  Has anything AT ALL been affected by “pretty lights” beyond making them pretty? If it has, I’ve never heard of it.

  Keep games about a gameplay experience, not just a visual feast. Save that tech for movies or playable stories (ie Telltale type). Focus only on the gameplay experience otherwise. Toss in some ray tracing when you can, but NEVER at the expense of physics. It just doesn’t make any sense.

  source