Comment by a13o | Hacker News Reader

Comment by a13o | Hacker News Reader

Who can blame them, I mean where's the motivation? Gamers aren't asking for 4k gaming, they want 2k gaming at high refresh rates.

Modern game engines aren't credibly capable of 4k gaming, given the market's desire for high refresh rates. The fine print will show that they are doing 4k@30Hz which is like going back in time to the PlayStation 2 era but with really fancy geometry.

The bar to clear is 4k@120Hz. However getting there requires a full stack refresh. A high end panel made in the last two years that not only can handle high refresh 4k, but has the required state of the art HDMI or DisplayPort tech to stream that many bits.

Since nobody else is in place yet -- the monitors, the game engines -- there's no incentive for the graphics card to be early to the party. RTX 40 series was for people with more money than market sense.

Nvidia is going to pay gaming lip service and bide its time until there's an actual growth vector in that space. All their attention is, and should be, on monetizing the 'AI' hype curve.

It really depends on game genre I think. For the types of games I play (slower stuff — solo RPGs/exploration, turn-based, etc), extra frames are nice but really don’t add a whole lot and I’d prefer to be able to ramp up resolution or effects instead. For these games as long as I’m hitting a consistent 60FPS I’m good.

For more twitchy competitive stuff I can see the need for FPS but that’s just a single corner of gaming.

If the surge of indie game popularity has shown anything, it's that games can be 8-bit hot pixellated messes but still touted as visual masterpieces as long as there's a decent global lighting engine somewhere in the mix.

I think, as you say, AI will be the next paradigm for gamers, and having specialised chips on these GPUs that can turn a scripted NPC story-based interaction into a do-what-you-want-under-these-contraints a la "AI town"[1] might keep them in business a little longer before they have to start upping the visuals again.

1: https://github.com/a16z-infra/ai-town

Even more importantly, a game can have crunchy 8-bit graphics that no one praises, but still be an amazing game.

No one (at least that I've heard) is saying, for instance, that Undertale or Deltarune are "visual masterpieces". They don't need to be. They're well-made games that do and say some interesting things.

Pixel art or 3d... graphics are overrated.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1388770/Cruelty_Squad/

(Haven't had the chance to play yet, but I've heard great things)

I don't play many modern games. Not really interested in the latest consoles and my graphics card in the PC is around 8 years old. It seems a lot of games now require a large time investment and not for causal gamers.

If I want to play a games these days I normally go to emulators and back to old games. Old arcade games and computer games from the 80s and 90s era may look dated but some of them are more fun.

While AAA games do tend to be bloated with extra content, it is all optional. The main quests usually take only 10-20 hours.

Also, the current trend is to make games more accessible and actually better for casual gamers. Most games now have customisable difficulty and quality of life features. When I think of 80s and 90s games I think of dying a lot and having to replay, not being able to figure things out without buying a walkthrough, no quicksave etc.

> It seems a lot of games now require a large time investment and not for causal gamers.

Whaaaat?? Nothing wrong with emulators, but there's tons of great, short, casual games out there! Here's a list of some of my favorites to get started, you can find a ton more of you search for lists containing some of these titles: Gris, Journey, A Short Hike, The Witness, Oxenfree, Celeste. And if you really want to dig deep into the short/indie games scene, check out https://itch.io (though it can be kinda hard to find the gems there).

1. Gameplay

2. Art Style

?. Sound Design (unsure if under gameplay or on its own).

3. Graphical Fidelity

This is what people look for in a game and what sells them, atleast in my opinion.

Some of biggest mainstream games of the last decade or so are Minecraft, and Fortnite.

Zelda TOTK (and its prequel) are some of the best games in video game history and run on the underpowered Switch at 30fps. The gameplay is what makes them good.

StarCraft (1998) remained big, right as every single RTS released after it went 3D.

StarCraft II is usually played competitively on low graphics settings, to improve visual clarity. The game is 13 years old, and on high graphics still looks fine when compared to any modern title.

The other day when there was a post about Starfield, it was quite striking to me how visually indistinct and cluttered everything is[0], like the people don't stand out from the scenery. The visual technology for Starfield is certainly less primitive (though every single thing looks like it's made out of glossy plastic to me), but I can't help but notice that something like ETLegacy feels much easier to visually process[1]. ETLegacy is also capable of maintaining 333 FPS at 4k almost all of the time if I set the cap that high, even on my now out-of-date GTX 1070.

[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=PISGdO_G8dY

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=iP6ihgnyHE0

4k@60Hz is fine as long as you have FreeSync or G-Sync IMHO. (Assuming you are actually hovering around 60 FPS)

GPU vendors keep pushing new pretty tech that their cards can't quite keep up with and even a 18ms frame time means 30 Hz with no dynamic refresh.

I agree that 4k@60Hz is sufficient. The reason I push further to 4k@120Hz is because at that speed you can guarantee reliable frame rate above 60 frames. Whereas if the goal is 4k@60Hz, it will be treated as average frame rate and Goodhart's law will let games ship with occasional dips below 60 frames as long as it averages out.

Bugs that cause the game to fall below the minimum specs will definitely get fixed. Whereas bugs that cause the game to fall below recommended specs will be deferred to at best a day 1 patch, but also maybe never.

So if you want the minimum specs to enforce 4k@60Hz and really mean it, we need to push the recommended specs higher still.

Minimum specs shouldn't be 4k@60Hz.

1080p is fine for min spec.

120Hz is more than twice as hard of a performance number to hit compared to 60Hz.

Most games pre 2022 run at 4k144 no problem on my 4090, it isn't there yet for the most modern games but the trend is clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com