It's pretty disappointing to see some folks in this thread questioning DF's credibility after a generation of excellent work.
I've appreciated that this conversation has helped me keep aware of confirmation bias though.
I can't speak for other commenters, but most of the flak directed at Lockhart was that it'd hold back the ability to design "next-gen" games. My understanding is that many of the elements of game design that people would like to see improved (render times, AI, scale of simulations, etc.) are CPU and memory-bound.
While Lockhart would have a lower graphical-fidelity in addition to lower resolution than the PS5 and Series X, if the CPU and memory solutions are the same or near-identical, it shouldn't hold the industry back from implementing a number of changes/improvements to game design.
I've appreciated that this conversation has helped me keep aware of confirmation bias though.
This extremely amusing. I mean, Lockhart won't hold anything back because scaling and games will still look amazing but suddenly ps5 9 or so TF will be weak. Warriors are something to behold.
I can't speak for other commenters, but most of the flak directed at Lockhart was that it'd hold back the ability to design "next-gen" games. My understanding is that many of the elements of game design that people would like to see improved (render times, AI, scale of simulations, etc.) are CPU and memory-bound.
While Lockhart would have a lower graphical-fidelity in addition to lower resolution than the PS5 and Series X, if the CPU and memory solutions are the same or near-identical, it shouldn't hold the industry back from implementing a number of changes/improvements to game design.
Last edited: