Yes, in the end it's a form of lazyness that the end user pays. Like a lack of optimization can be compensated by buying better hardware.
AO doesn't need any "manual" solution. It's calculated at run time.
But pretty much all of raytracing here could be simulated with baked lighting. For example Assassin Creed's Unity I think matches pretty close to Metro WITH raytracing.
No, I'm writing about this because it is important, not bizarre. My intent is to keep the two aspects entirely separate, because they are.
In what you write here, instead, you make the error of doing exactly what "they" want: clump everything together.
The point is: "immersion breaking" opposes the "virtual signaling". You cannot support these two arguments at the same time. One obligatorily excludes the other.
1- If the real issue is immersion, then the complaint is legitimate and there's zero politics involved. It's just about historical accuracy and nothing else. (and where you draw the line with immersion breaking is very subjective)
2- If instead the issue is virtue signaling or however you want to see it, then immersion IS NOT a problem. You can complain about virtue signaling even if Battlefield was set 3000 years in the future. If you want NO WOMEN in your war games then you don't want them regardless of historical accuracy. You just don't want them. Full stop. You don't really need the historical accuracy as some sort of cover up to further some other agenda. It seems illogical to me.
So if I defend the argument of historical accuracy it means the opposite of what you said: I don't align with their politics, and I'm not batting for any message they bring forth.
GamingThreadThe Controversy Over Bethesda's 'Game Engine' Is Misguided [Kotaku]
ReasonUser banned (1 week): Antagonizing and insulting another user, acount still in its junior phase.
This is funny because, very obviously, Jason Schreier doesn't know what he's talking about and he's way too dumb to realize it.
A "game engine", as used in discussions in forums and articles, IS NOT A PIECE OF TECH. Nor it is a "collection", as he says.
A game engine is an heuristic. It's a term in language that works like an umbrella and that encompasses the overall "look and feel" of playing a game. *Playing* it, not building it.
Of course the look of Morrowind or Oblivion doesn't PRECISELY correspond to the look of Skyrim or Fallout, but the analogies and the general feel are absolutely there. You could make an experiment and let someone play a Bethesda game without knowing it's Bethesda and he'll know, if he's competent, within minutes. And certainly not because that game would be very complex.
If an engine is an engine, then it provides a structure. No matter how much you WRESTLE it, the structure is a structure and by being structure it imposes itself and will create limits.
No matter how many times Bethesda explains how they rewrote everything in their engine, PLAYING those games will always reveal the truth. And the truth is that they are too scared to abandon the pipeline they used until this point because they cannot afford to wipe everything clean and restart from zero. Because IT IS indeed an engine, and they don't want to discard it.
And yet it's the same shit, as glaringly obvious to anyone who played even for 5 minutes. All Jason Schreier says falls apart right there because it is PROVEN by playing the game and realizing how the "engine" is still the same.
What Jason Schreier says is only vaguely correct in the sense that "engine" is not a word used precisely in this context. But it's only a discussion on the specific use and meaning of that word, and it doesn't even remotely touch the actual discussion that takes place when players criticize this "engine".