Magmarock

Horror games and sports including racing games tend to work well with realistic style, but we've long passed the need for new technology to create that look. You can make photo realistic graphics using tech from years ago. Look at Tomb Raider 2013. Still looks real in my opinion. Although I think the ones from the 2008 looks better.

Its a mixture of thing factors, going back a decade or two
People have been pushing for higher graphics because it gives them an excuse for why they buy new tech, in this case cpus and gpus. Meanwhile games really.don't need it. Games need graphics and an art style that work for it. They dont need to be realistic, they dont need to be cartoony, they need to work with the game. For example, if borderlands looked realistic and gritty, would it have gotten all of its sequels and spinoffs? Imo, no. It would of been lost in the muckpile of what games were then, all brown and gritty. its cell shading and (imo again) dated visuals helped it

I'm look at these and yeah I stand by what I said.
https://tinyurl.com/nhb8b26
This is just the young person version of "back in my day" argument which isn't an argument at all.

Horror games and sports including racing games tend to work well with realistic style, but we've long passed the need for new technology to create that look. You can make photo realistic graphics using tech from years ago. Look at Tomb Raider 2013. Still looks real in my opinion. Although I think the ones from the 2008 looks better.

Horror games and sports including racing games tend to work well with realistic style, but we've long passed the need for new technology to create that look. You can make photo realistic graphics using tech from years ago. Look at Tomb Raider 2013. Still looks real in my opinion. Although I think the ones from the 2008 looks better.

High fidelity is ruining games.
The last game I played that impressed with high fidelity was the original Crysis from 2007.
After watching this video
 
For a while now I've held the belief that the push graphics is destroying game. Video cards with heat sinks so heavy and bulky that it will tear itself apart unless braced properly, photo realistic looking games that only look 10% better than what they did 10 years ago, long load times limited physics, low frame rates. I am so sick of seeing these boring lifeless realistic games that I have been looking towards retro and indie games just to escape the homogenized mess.
Here's a good video on the subject
 
This was more of a rant, but years ago I used to look forward to the latest tech. Now I dread it. I'm going to go and play some Unreal Tournament. It's like Fortnight but good.

I was inspired to make this post after watching Luke and Linus talk about DLSS and how the industry might be moving away from native res. If Nintendo can make games look good on a toaster than we really gotta stop with the excuses.

I never said it implied that it had anything to do with the kernel. With all do respect it doesn't sound like you've read my post. Or perhaps you don't quite understand it. All I can do is leave this here.
 
apostlkpl has already addressed this with this with the following post.
 
You're on the right track but having less repos won't exactly fix the problem. Games weather emulated or running natively are going to need some kind of middleware to sand box them and keep them working. That's what Windows does and what Linux tries to do but fails at. Whenever a distro gets updated they just modify the source code of all the the apps in the repo to work on the new kernel. You don't do this with closed source software. You can't make closed source software work for you, you have to make your OS work for it; if that makes any sense.

To be clear, I am NOT a developer. That being said, Windows is generally much much easier to work with than Linux. That is, as a desktop system, meaning GNU/Linux distros. Not "Linux-based" systems like Android or ChromeOS (I don't consider those Linux distros, but merely OSs based on Linux kernel).
 
GNU/Linux distros make it hard for developers to work with, or more correctly to keep up. Unless they make their driver/software open source, they have to update their binaries constantly against new kernel and libc versions.
 
If we are talking about specific uses, such as creating open source drivers for the Linux kernel, or closed source drivers for a fixed version of the kernel (for example Android ROMs), yes, Linux might be easy to work with. Maybe easier than Windows, I wouldn't know.
 
BUT, when we talk about commercial software and computer peripherals, Windows is much much better for developers, as proven by reality.

Th is basically the argument that I was trying to make but MUCH BETTER! Thank you good sir this has made my day.

GNU/Linux distros will never be a serious candidate for a gaming platform. I don't get how Valve feels positive with the steamdeck, especially since SteamOS 2.0 is a failed and abandoned project.
 
Anyway, the reason that desktop Linux sucks as a gaming platform is that gaming requires most of the code used in Games, (game-related) Tools and Drivers to be closed source. This is done because of competitive issues (for example Nvidia drivers) or to prevent cheating. That being said, Linux is the greatest OS when it comes to Server use, because most tools when it comes to networking are open source anyway.
 
It's not like that was an accident or something. Microsoft did not accidentally become number one on PCs for no reason. MS provides a stable API/ABI for Windows, thorough documentation, official Frameworks, SDKs, etc. On top of that, they offer the most incredible backwards compatibility even seen on computing (they have to though, because of Windows being the most used OS in most industries).
 
GNU/Linux on the other hand, ties software compilation to specific kernel and libc versions, a single tiny change in those versions break everything, and needs every app re-compiled. This is not a problem for open source apps (most distros re-compile packages automatically), but is a hell for maintaining closed-source software. That's why many companies that started to release Linux binaries for their (closed source) apps gave up eventually. To be fair, Flatpak/Snap tries to fix this problem.
 
Even when it comes to the kernel, Linux was never made with the intention of using closed source drivers. It works best when it gets to work with all required drivers within the kernel. Even closed source drivers are kind of a temporary fix, as loading modules is not recommended! Even Linus Torvalds himself said that closed source binaries are NOT welcome, and whoever chooses to uses them are on their own [trying to find the source for that].******
 
Now, as a gaming developer or a software company, would you choose a hostile environment like Linux, or a welcoming one like Windows for your Game releases?
 
 
Disclaimer: Emphasis on "GNU/Linux" throughout the post. The kernel as it is, can be useful for "Linux-based" projects like Android, that fixes most of said problems (with the exception of drivers, that's why you don't get Android upgrades indefinitely on your phone, hardware manufacturers like Mediatek or Qualcomm don't bother to make new drivers every time the kernel changes).
 
 
****EDIT:
"In the Linux kernel development community, Linus Torvalds has made strong statements on the issue of binary-only modules, asserting: "I refuse to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module", and continuing: "I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_device_driver

I've been using Linux on and off ever since Windows 8 came out, and there are a few things that just never change. Electronic Arts it still terrible, Half Life 3 is still not happening and desktop Linux is still the worst choice of platform for any serious gamer.
 
So I've been watching the Linux challenge as well as the responses to it by the Linux community and it seems that Linus has unknowingly opened a Pandora's box of angry fans ready to assault the censers from all corners. Criticizing Linux is a lot like criticizing Half Life or Valve, no matter how on point you are no one wants to hear it. Trying to avoid the hate from the Linux community is a fruitless endeavor, it's going to happen whether you like it or not.
 
The truth is Linux is good for certain things; but gaming is not one of them. Out of all the  platforms that can play games from retro gaming PC's with Windows 95 to retro gaming consoles from 30 years ago, Linux is the worst choice of platform. If you ask the community why this is, most will tell you something along the lines of "it's because not enough people use it," or "it's because Microsoft got in first." These are just excuses, the reality is that the Linux community is extremely self sabotaging and goes out of it's way to prevent progress in it's own platform. One of the fundamental reasons that happens is because they don't like closed source software.
 

There's nothing wrong with open source software but there's nothing wrong with closed source either. But you'll never convince the Linux community of this. Linux desktop operating systems IE distros, such as Ubuntu use a repository to install software. Most of the apps in the repository were ported there by the distro maintainers and members of the Linux community. They get the source code from places like GitHub, looked over it, and then modified it to work with their distribution; this is by desgin. You can't do this with closed source software. Developers of closed source applications have to do all the work themselves rather than relying on the community to do it for them.
 
 
 
You might be wandering, "so? Why not just make the game work for Ubuntu as it is and leave at that. Games doesn't need to be open source to work on Linux right?"

For it to continue working for the foreseeable future, it does. Linux doesn't have things like Dot Net, Visual Studio, or direct X. Sure, it  may have things like Vulkan and OpenGL but those don't have the same kind of infrastructure that the closed source software needs for long term functionality. Game developers don't want to work on a game for much longer after it's been released. Once they've release it, they spend the next few weeks or so patching it and then they move on. They don't want to hear about it after that.
 
 
Because Linux Distros are being changed or modified by the community in one way or another, the software for it must also be changed and modified to keep up with it. When something is open source, like for example VLC, it's not that big of a deal. The distro maintainers can make the changes they want to the OS and change VLC's code to accommodate. With closed source you can't to do this. This is why Windows is like the way it is. They are always building it on top of old code. This is so old programs including your favorite games can still work on it. It isn't perfect, but Windows has the best backwards compatibly of any platform out there; again, this is by design.
 
 
5 years ago I kept hearing how gaming on Linux had come a long way. I expect to hear the same thing again in another 5 years. In my experience, it's just as bad now as it was back then. All because it's own community is completely inflexible with too much infighting to get anything done.
There's a lot more I could say about Linux but I'll save that for the responses.
 
 

They worked fine in the virtual machine and on native Windows so it's not the hardware. Also Dead Space and Darksiers 2 are old. You don't retain much do you.
 
Trine 2
And Yet it Moves
Little Inferno
All native all had the same problem. No dependencies because repos suck for games.
 
when you said CDPR I thought you just meant Cypberpunk. So the only examples I'm allowed to use are ones that favor your argument? Sounds a little arbitrary wouldn't you say?
 
That's not acknowledge, that's pointing fingers and making excuses. Talking about private source code like it's something you're entitled to. Yeah the games industry uses proprietary code. It's not gonna change so deal with it and stop making excuses.
 
Criticism of Linux no matter how constructive will always get you labeled a troll in response. Linus himself got the very same treatment. Here's one such example
   
One of the biggest Linux youtbers and just can't take the hint. Linux is not great for gaming people.
 
There's that word again. No one cares about potential dude. They want what's good today not what might be good some years from now; and what doesn't have "potential?" Does Windows not have the potential to improve. Do consoles not have the potential to improve to the point where PC gaming might want to get into them? Point is everything has potential so saying it doesn't mean much.
 
 
I agree with this as well 100% just remember, if you reach out to the community for help this is the kind of response you can expect to receive. Just learn to like games and things that work well on Linux, rather than use something that works well for what you want it to do. 

WHAT! Are you trolling or something?

WHAT! Are you trolling or something?

WHAT! Are you trolling or something?

I've been using Linux on and off ever since Windows 8 came out, and there are a few things that just never change. Electronic Arts it still terrible, Half Life 3 is still not happening and desktop Linux is still the worst choice of platform for any serious gamer.
 
So I've been watching the Linux challenge as well as the responses to it by the Linux community and it seems that Linus has unknowingly opened a Pandora's box of angry fans ready to assault the censers from all corners. Criticizing Linux is a lot like criticizing Half Life or Valve, no matter how on point you are no one wants to hear it. Trying to avoid the hate from the Linux community is a fruitless endeavor, it's going to happen whether you like it or not.
 
The truth is Linux is good for certain things; but gaming is not one of them. Out of all the  platforms that can play games from retro gaming PC's with Windows 95 to retro gaming consoles from 30 years ago, Linux is the worst choice of platform. If you ask the community why this is, most will tell you something along the lines of "it's because not enough people use it," or "it's because Microsoft got in first." These are just excuses, the reality is that the Linux community is extremely self sabotaging and goes out of it's way to prevent progress in it's own platform. One of the fundamental reasons that happens is because they don't like closed source software.
 

There's nothing wrong with open source software but there's nothing wrong with closed source either. But you'll never convince the Linux community of this. Linux desktop operating systems IE distros, such as Ubuntu use a repository to install software. Most of the apps in the repository were ported there by the distro maintainers and members of the Linux community. They get the source code from places like GitHub, looked over it, and then modified it to work with their distribution; this is by desgin. You can't do this with closed source software. Developers of closed source applications have to do all the work themselves rather than relying on the community to do it for them.
 
 
 
You might be wandering, "so? Why not just make the game work for Ubuntu as it is and leave at that. Games doesn't need to be open source to work on Linux right?"

For it to continue working for the foreseeable future, it does. Linux doesn't have things like Dot Net, Visual Studio, or direct X. Sure, it  may have things like Vulkan and OpenGL but those don't have the same kind of infrastructure that the closed source software needs for long term functionality. Game developers don't want to work on a game for much longer after it's been released. Once they've release it, they spend the next few weeks or so patching it and then they move on. They don't want to hear about it after that.
 
 
Because Linux Distros are being changed or modified by the community in one way or another, the software for it must also be changed and modified to keep up with it. When something is open source, like for example VLC, it's not that big of a deal. The distro maintainers can make the changes they want to the OS and change VLC's code to accommodate. With closed source you can't to do this. This is why Windows is like the way it is. They are always building it on top of old code. This is so old programs including your favorite games can still work on it. It isn't perfect, but Windows has the best backwards compatibly of any platform out there; again, this is by design.
 
 
5 years ago I kept hearing how gaming on Linux had come a long way. I expect to hear the same thing again in another 5 years. In my experience, it's just as bad now as it was back then. All because it's own community is completely inflexible with too much infighting to get anything done.
There's a lot more I could say about Linux but I'll save that for the responses.
 
 

I've been using Linux on and off ever since Windows 8 came out, and there are a few things that just never change. Electronic Arts it still terrible, Half Life 3 is still not happening and desktop Linux is still the worst choice of platform for any serious gamer.
 
So I've been watching the Linux challenge as well as the responses to it by the Linux community and it seems that Linus has unknowingly opened a Pandora's box of angry fans ready to assault the censers from all corners. Criticizing Linux is a lot like criticizing Half Life or Valve, no matter how on point you are no one wants to hear it. Trying to avoid the hate from the Linux community is a fruitless endeavor, it's going to happen whether you like it or not.
 
The truth is Linux is good for certain things; but gaming is not one of them. Out of all the  platforms that can play games from retro gaming PC's with Windows 95 to retro gaming consoles from 30 years ago, Linux is the worst choice of platform. If you ask the community why this is, most will tell you something along the lines of "it's because not enough people use it," or "it's because Microsoft got in first." These are just excuses, the reality is that the Linux community is extremely self sabotaging and goes out of it's way to prevent progress in it's own platform. One of the fundamental reasons that happens is because they don't like closed source software.
 

There's nothing wrong with open source software but there's nothing wrong with closed source either. But you'll never convince the Linux community of this. Linux desktop operating systems IE distros, such as Ubuntu use a repository to install software. Most of the apps in the repository were ported there by the distro maintainers and members of the Linux community. They get the source code from places like GitHub, looked over it, and then modified it to work with their distribution; this is by desgin. You can't do this with closed source software. Developers of closed source applications have to do all the work themselves rather than relying on the community to do it for them.
 
 
 
You might be wandering, "so? Why not just make the game work for Ubuntu as it is and leave at that. Games doesn't need to be open source to work on Linux right?"

For it to continue working for the foreseeable future, it does. Linux doesn't have things like Dot Net, Visual Studio, or direct X. Sure, it  may have things like Vulkan and OpenGL but those don't have the same kind of infrastructure that the closed source software needs for long term functionality. Game developers don't want to work on a game for much longer after it's been released. Once they've release it, they spend the next few weeks or so patching it and then they move on. They don't want to hear about it after that.
 
 
Because Linux Distros are being changed or modified by the community in one way or another, the software for it must also be changed and modified to keep up with it. When something is open source, like for example VLC, it's not that big of a deal. The distro maintainers can make the changes they want to the OS and change VLC's code to accommodate. With closed source you can't to do this. This is why Windows is like the way it is. They are always building it on top of old code. This is so old programs including your favorite games can still work on it. It isn't perfect, but Windows has the best backwards compatibly of any platform out there; again, this is by design.
 
 
5 years ago I kept hearing how gaming on Linux had come a long way. I expect to hear the same thing again in another 5 years. In my experience, it's just as bad now as it was back then. All because it's own community is completely inflexible with too much infighting to get anything done.
There's a lot more I could say about Linux but I'll save that for the responses.
 
 

I listened to their cinamate speaker and to be honest I was really impressed. I'm not an ecpert on skeapers, but I've never seen speakers that small produce sound that loud with that much base, while still sounding clear, ever.
 
I'm open too any opinions, but you can't just say look at a "real" review. Reviews are all based on subjective opinions. Simply saying that a review is better because it agrees with you doesn't make it right. A good review is backed up by good information leading to the reason. If you know of such a review then please post a link and I would be glad to read it.