No, I don't focus on realism over the playability of the game. The last "photorealistic" game I played was Ready or Not. But I have recently been enjoying Vintage Story, The Legend of Dragoon, Koudelka, and other games with "bad" graphics. Aside from Vintage Story, it should be noted that these other games were considered "cutting edge" graphics for their time, but they are by no means photorealistic.
My issue is that TAA (among other things such as UE5s Nanite and Lumen tech when incorrectly used) typically ruins games it is used in, both from an image quality perspective and a performance perspective. I wish that developers would stop using the default or current implementations of TAA so that better, more performant algorithms that don't have the downside of smearing and has the upside of being faster can naturally emerge. Really, these are mostly problems that have already been solved but are ignored because big game studios operate via "Checkbox Development." Rather than spending the time and money to implement these better solutions, they instead just check the default box for the default effect because it is faster and costs them less money.
Also as a person that grew up when game consoles could connect to the TV via an RF Switch, the image-damaging effects of Temporal Anti Alias smearing are extremely visible, and NOT a "miserable invisible miniscule artifact." They're massive on the screen. The particular examples shown in this video do not show it particularly well because it only focuses on raytracing, but the effects of TAA are still visible because turning on raytracing almost always forces on TAA, since the low resolution raytracing benefits from the smearing TAA causes.
Do you ever go back to a WikiPedia article after you read it to check if it has been updated? Yeah, didn't think so. Most people don't. Thats why there is danger in just believing everything on WikiPedia because its on there and its free. Its not a bad resource, but it isn't always a good source either.
But obviously you and others have some weird fetish regarding WikiPedia, so I guess this is where the conversation stops. People here be making it out like I am saying WikiPedia is evil and that is definitely not what I am saying, but I suppose on Lemmy it doesn't really matter. People believe whatever they want to regardless.
Yes it does. But not all of that information is always true. Wikipedia pages are vandalized all the time, people quote sources that are later revealed as made up or not credible, these are all things that happen everywhere, WikiPedia is not immune to this. That is why I said WikiPedia is not a "force for truth." It can be correct, but can you guarantee that every time you go to WikiPedia, the information on any given page will always be 100% correct? This is all I meant.
Well as I said it, isn't completely useless. I mean, sources aren't always reputable. People make mistakes, people act in bad faith, things happen.
I was just saying that WikiPedia is not a "bastion of truth," because it is very susceptible to wrong information. Sure, the information may be correct most of the time on popular high traffic pages, but on low traffic pages, or pages that used to be low traffic and suddenly became high traffic because of some topical issue, can you really be sure that you aren't reading wrong or biased information? That is all I am bringing up. I think any person with a brain can realize this, but I wanted to be sure to mention it regardless, as many people seem to not meet that low specification.
I don't know exactly what is going on with WikiPedia right this moment, mostly because I am neither glued to the news nor to WikiPedia, and I have no idea who this user you talk about is or what they are saying. However, WikiPedia isnt exactly a 100% trustworthy source, and it never really was.
Calling WikiPedia a "force for truth" is kind of silly, in my opinion. It can be helpful with basic information or finding potential sources, but it is definitely not something you should just immediately take everything on the site at face value. Within the last maybe 10 years or so, the credibility of its sources have started to come into question, at least on some of their recently authored/edited articles. It certainly doesnt help that literally anyone can edit most pages, and that WikiPedia is not a verifiably neutral information source on most things. What I mean by this is that, WikiPedia might list both positive and negative reception about a certain film or video game, for example, but they usually wont mention whether the negative points are outliers or whether there is overwhelmingly more positive reception except if there is a controversy section. This gives a surface appearance of being neutral, but actually skews toward whichever side is the dissenting opinion. For video games and film, they at least list reviews which can kind of mitigate this, but on articles regarding history or art, you cant exactly put reviews on historian/artist opinions. This can lead (and has lead) to some instances of sources quoting themselves (which I think is against WikiPedia rules?) and other hilarity.
I got an R36S, which is shaped more like a DMG GameBoy and has dual analog sticks. It can play Dreamcast, but only at native resolution and sometimes it needs to be tweaked further. Saturn is actually a tad slow, dipping into 40fps usually. It can also do some less intensive PSP games. For a $60 handheld, this is fine. But considering SEGA is SEGA, I suspect that they want a much bigger profit margin than whoever is selling the R36S is making. Which is why I mentioned the SoCs in my comment.
Can't stop the artillery the drone operator calls in. At that point it doesn't matter how muscular they are.