Chapotraphouse

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

• yewtu.be
• inv.nadeko.net
• yt.artemislena.eu
• piped.video

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

on the CPU side Crysis was made assuming clock speeds would keeo getting higher but instead of having 6 gigahertz single-core CPUs we have slower 16 core ones and shit, and games have not been very good about utilizing multiple processor cores.

PUBG is 8 years old now but that was/probably is CPU-bottlenecked for a lot of people and something like that is probably pushing it on what they're doing on the CPU side.

i can't remember the name of it but there's a youtube series from some guy making no-gpu graphics stuff because CPUs are orders of magnitude more powerful than they were 30 years ago when people didn't have GPUs

There's some sim games that fully utilize the CPU:

Noita's particle simulation is pretty incredible and the fact that it works online with the Noita Together mod is also wild. Regular gameplay is not the limit, but if you're going for some of the challenges you'll have runs that begin to test the limits of the physics engine and your hardware with extremely powerful wands and manipulating large amounts of terrain. This does all happen in the CPU.

Teardown is a similar thing but in 3D. IIRC the simulation is a bit simpler for Teardown and it runs in the GPU though I might be wrong.

Certain automation scenarios in modded and vanilla Minecraft stretch the limits of CPU hardware. These probably won't come up for 90% of players, though.

I can't think of any games that are doing completely innovative stuff with compute shaders (i.e. doing massively parallel computation on the GPU) in a transformative, totally unprecedented way. I think there's a bit of a materialist explanation here, though. AAA is very live service oriented because it's just more profitable by a large margin. Live service games tend to be online only. Networking doesn't play nice with massively parallel workloads, it simply doesn't make sense to make some kind of simulation that handles that kind of data and has to be consistent across multiple clients with latency between them (and if you just don't synchronize the simulations, you can't have the simulation be mechanically impactful). Ergo, this is a kind of innovation that mostly is gonna happen in singleplayer games and it's risky to invest a lot of money in those, especially for something experimental.

What you can actually deliver to multiple unsynchronized clients with GPU hardware is better graphics and simulations that don't have any mechanical impact (e.g. particle effects, cosmetic fluid simulation).

VR requires high resolutions at high frame rates, so it has been on the forefront of the tech. It's also very expensive so there are very few games developed for it.

The shifts from quantity to quality haven't been as dramatic as something like open worlds for a while, but I do think there are some. You could argue that nearly photorealistic horror games are of a different kind. Better facial animations have allowed new types of storytelling, though that might have started a little before your time window. Maybe those games where you are always slowly squeezing between two rocks instead of having a loading screen could be seen as cinematographically new?

GTA V/VI and RDR2 come to mind. Really I think it's just an issue of rushed deadlines that prevent any sort of detail from emerging so in the end, game studios just pump out machine up-scaled textures and pray that frame-gen solves everything for them. You can put as many shaders in your game but if the textures themselves lack detail it's just going to give off the illusion of depth.

Also chasing trends, Overwatch got to be super successful without any ultra-realism and it shifted the entire space to cartoony hero-shooters (+ fortnite) while the battlefields and cods languished behind and it made sense from a business perspective since the cartoon aesthetic cut costs from having to detail the textures.

getting diminishing marginal returns for a while

gaming in capitalism

The paradox of evil is also just a very euro-centric thing based on non-pagan interpretations of god. As with any idealist paradox there are contradictory answers based on whichever perspective the speaker has.

God allows evil to proliferate to punish humans for making the wrong choice is just as valid as God is a collection of gases and doesn't have any impetus in creating anything based on belief.

This is in the Epstein emails the DOJ is refusing to release

This reminds me of when the game Hellpoint had/has some Alex Jones/Nazi lore blurb about something. I can't remember what it was, but it was like a really specific conspiracy being referenced as a real in-game event and when asked about it they pretended to have no idea and had this weird evasiveness about it. And it's like, I know what you're doing here. No idea how right-wingers think they're being sneaky about this stuff.

OH MY GOD IT'S SO JUICY

What's a nutroast