DOOM: The Dark Ages Requires RT. Release Date, PC System Requirements, and New Gameplay Trailer Revealed

[Jtuck9]

the first thing i thought when looking at the poster is "Evil Dead: The FPS", he has a BOOMSTICK and a CHAINSHIELD, pretty much in the same pose as army of darkness

when i watched the trailer, errrrr it's pretty much a high budget serious sam 4: hordes of enemies, gore, he even gets on a pacific-rim jäger just like Sam gets on the popemobile (one of the favourite parts of the entire game for me)

I always thought the first RAGE was an interesting blueprint for how a DOOM WORLD game might play.

 

[Event Horizon]

I miss Doom 2016's multiplayer. It was extremely fun. A perfect combination of Halo and Doom. Shame they couldn't keep the cheaters out. Looks like they've completely abandoned proper multiplayer in the sequels.

 

[evernessince]

It was no different in the late 90's and early 2000's when graphics fidelity sky rocketed within a couple of years.

The market was not very mature back then, people were willing to put up with that sort of thing because it was still very young.

There's really no excuse for a game to do the same thing today because you can always have a rasterization fallback to RT, every game engine already supports rasterized lighting and a mature implementation at that. When early 3D PC games started implementing features that required a GPU upgrade it's because there was no fallback. Those were the very basics required to make 3D games. Today we are lucky enough to have multiple approaches and it makes sense to utilize everything where appropriate.

Your average AAA title in the 90s ran 1-3 million, your average AAA title today runs $200 - $400 million. Really no excuse to not include a tried and true rasterized fallback when rasterized lighting has already been so well refined.

I'd also like to point out two other important factors:

1) RT introduces noise. This is visible on surfaces and reflections.
2) Getting decent RT performance is expensive. The cost to purchase a base level of performance in AAA titles has been skyrocketing due to game requirements exploding and a lack of improvement to value provided by GPU manufacturers.

The transition to RT feels forced. I'm willing to bet if good RT performance was affordable and gamers were always given the choice between RT and Raster the technology would be a lot less grating for many. As it stands right now it's both expensive and Nvidia seems dead set on dragging gamers along regardless of their impressions. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, you have to agree that this is absolutely not the correct approach.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Dear id Software,

Please make a Quake 1 sequel.

Thanks,
Just another fanboy

THIS!! YES!

 

[TheDeeGee]

The market was not very mature back then, people were willing to put up with that sort of thing because it was still very young.

There's really no excuse for a game to do the same thing today because you can always have a rasterization fallback to RT, every game engine already supports rasterized lighting and a mature implementation at that. When early 3D PC games started implementing features that required a GPU upgrade it's because there was no fallback. Those were the very basics required to make 3D games. Today we are lucky enough to have multiple approaches and it makes sense to utilize everything where appropriate.

Your average AAA title in the 90s ran 1-3 million, your average AAA title today runs $200 - $400 million. Really no excuse to not include a tried and true rasterized fallback when rasterized lighting has already been so well refined.

I'd also like to point out two other important factors:

1) RT introduces noise. This is visible on surfaces and reflections.
2) Getting decent RT performance is expensive. The cost to purchase a base level of performance in AAA titles has been skyrocketing due to game requirements exploding and a lack of improvement to value provided by GPU manufacturers.

The transition to RT feels forced. I'm willing to bet if good RT performance was affordable and gamers were always given the choice between RT and Raster the technology would be a lot less grating for many. As it stands right now it's both expensive and Nvidia seems dead set on dragging gamers along regardless of their impressions. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, you have to agree that this is absolutely not the correct approach.

You can't just make a toggle for Raster vs RT/PT due to baked lighting.

 

[evernessince]

You can't just make a toggle for Raster vs RT/PT due to baked lighting.

Well you can because certain games have exactly that. Baked lighting doesn't require RT on the consumer's hardware, that's not how baking works. The lighting is calculated on the devs end and it isn't done in real-time anyways.