Since when is having more choices a bad thing? I can simply turn the feature off, problem solved.
Isn't that an admittance that the feature is a failure then? What's the point of implementing superior graphical features if they don't work to the point that you have to turn them off? That means the developer should go back to the drawing board to either remove them entirely and focus their efforts on fixing the bugs in most AAA games today OR start from scratch with an open-source next gen game engine that has the ability to do next gen effects. DICE doesn't have a problem with this, so no excuses.
It's not that simple when you look at the big picture.
GWs means developers tack on visual features to games via NV-made DLLs/middleware since they don't want to spend their own resources, invest $ into next gen graphics tech/engines, hire cutting edge programmers, visual artists/designers to realize technical leaps via open-source coding.
Open-source development means you are required to spend more $, resources and put in-house talent/brains to use that's
required to make true next gen games from the
ground-up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA
GameWorks effects are like Baskin-Robbins or Dove. It's better than your average ice cream/chocolate but it's not Gelato or Godiva.
When you start off with the desire to make next gen cutting edge graphics, you do
not start with GameWorks since it's admittance that:
1) NV's programmers can do it better than you (i.e., companies that
make games!) ever could;
2) You think GameWorks features look better than all open-source alternatives available;
3) You think GameWorks offers the best trade-off between quality and performance compaes to all open source alternatives;
4) You consciously make the decision to use proprietary tech developed by someone else (NV) -- i.e., you give up
all control for streamlined in-house optimizations since you never made the code - it's all middle ware DLLs -- and it means you have no next gen in-house tech for
next gen games because what are you going to use for your Next gen sequel? Call NV for help again? :sneaky: Congrats, might as well tell NV to make your entire game, like write the story line while we are at it.
What's next? NV's GameWorks Audio in games for Symphonic proprietary experience?
BTW, NV helped to destroy advanced physics by buying off Ageia. At one point we didn't need an accelerated graphics card for games as the graphics were handled by the CPU. Advanced physics was in that infant stage where it needed room to breathe and evolve to become another add-in component that we require for next gen physics effects. Thanks to NV, they destroyed one of the few companies that was onto something new and dreamed big about revolutionizing physics in games. PhysX lock is proof in itself that long-term proprietary tech that's closed-source is a failure unless the company behind it has marketing $$$ out of the wazoo to push it down everyone's throats (Apple). Obviously NV doesn't since they cannot afford to add PhysX to many games.
The question is why you Nvidia fanboys insist that having such features is a good thing. Losing 20-30FPS from turning up one setting that only improves visual in side-by-side comparisons? Why would anyone with half a brain want that? Why is wanting optimized games a bad thing? I don't get it.
Because they convinced themselves that GWs features are
required to push PC gaming above consoles. That's why they look at GWs as some 'savior' to console ports. This is even more ironic considering no GWs game of 2015 (or ever) looks as good as SW:BF - an open source game. More ironic is a lot of GWs titles released in 2015 actually look
terribly outdated - JC3, Rainbox 6 Siege, FO4.
Are there GWs titles that look good? Sure, Dying Light, Crysis 3, etc. come to mind but could you make those games without using a single GWs middle ware effect and substitute it with a superior open-source effect? Absolutely!
Is there special features you can enable on AMD cards like hairworks?
The concept of special (i.e., proprietary) graphical features such as HairWorks doesn't apply to AMD because AMD's ideology is to make all graphical effects open-source for betterment of gaming as a whole. The same reason why AMD didn't patent FreeSync or make it closed source. NV or Intel are free to use FreeSync but NV purposely doesn't want to support open-source standards since the way they function is like Apple - desire to lock you into their eco-system at all costs even at the detriment of what made PC gaming what it is today -- open source and wide in scope accessibility.
Facebook
Twitter