Poll: Do you care for Ray Tracing "now"?

[Dicehunter]

RT does very little for me and I also think it is vastly over rated for gaming (Genius of NVidia marketing).

As a feature I find it is nowhere near as good as something like PhysX which in itself is not that great and no one even talks about it on forums.

10 mins into a game how many serious gamers would even be taking any notice of what RT is doing or would they be a lot more interested in the gameplay itself?

Been gaming since I was around 4 years old, Now in my 30's, I've always loved the progression of graphical fidelity, I find RT adds to the atmosphere of a game, Reflections, Lighting etc.... As an example I have over 100 hours in Cyberpunk alone, Taking it very slow, Not rushing, I'm still only half way through the story, Enjoying the gameplay experience and the atmosphere that the graphics, Including RT, Help to create.

I think the only "serious" gamers are the ones who don't spend any money, Get sponsored by companies and enter competitions winning money and more sponsorships, Everyone else is just a hobbyist that constantly throws money at these companies.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Been gaming since I was around 4 years old, Now in my 30's, I've always loved the progression of graphical fidelity, I find RT adds to the atmosphere of a game, Reflections, Lighting etc.... As an example I have over 100 hours in Cyberpunk alone, Taking it very slow, Not rushing, I'm still only half way through the story, Enjoying the gameplay experience and the atmosphere that the graphics, Including RT, Help to create.

I think the only "serious" gamers are the ones who don't spend any money, Get sponsored by companies and enter competitions winning money and more sponsorships, Everyone else is just a hobbyist that constantly throws money at these companies.

serious is not a synonym for profesional

You don't need to be sponsered or entering competitions to be considered as taking gaming seriously.

 

[Dicehunter]

serious is not a synonym for professional

You don't need to be sponsored or entering competitions to be considered as taking gaming seriously.

A "serious" gamer would be someone who games as part of their lifestyle, Which is basically everyone on this forum but according to several people anyone who dares appreciate graphical technology inside a game they play is not a "serious" gamer, It's honestly like being back in high school "you don't meet our imaginary criteria so you don't qualify for a label I made up".

 

[HangTime]

Can't really answer this via poll, the poll options don't really resonate with me and the OP is lacking in detail.

For me, it's all a balance. Do want raytracing - yes. Do I want raytracing with bad performance - no. I guess ultimately raw rasterisation performance is like a hygiene factor, ray tracing is kind of irrelevant unless you get the basics right. So it's like, if I had a choice between two really fast cards at similar prices, one can do RT well and the other can't, then the former gets my money. If it was the case I had to pay significantly more for RT, or it performed significantly worse at 'normal' rendering, then the latter would probably be the choice.

 

[Nexus18]

Can't really answer this via poll, the poll options don't really resonate with me and the OP is lacking in detail.

For me, it's all a balance. Do want raytracing - yes. Do I want raytracing with bad performance - no. I guess ultimately raw rasterisation performance is like a hygiene factor, ray tracing is kind of irrelevant unless you get the basics right. So it's like, if I had a choice between two really fast cards at similar prices, one can do RT well and the other can't, then the former gets my money. If it was the case I had to pay significantly more for RT, or it performed significantly worse at 'normal' rendering, then the latter would probably be the choice.

See below, it is purely based in the here and now as to whether you care for RT as a feature/tech. or not, of course all of what you said would come into consideration as to which option you vote for.

Yup this is purely for the here and now.

The last option "never will care for it, rasterization all day long!!!" was just there for giggles tbh However, there have been a few people that said they rather have rasterization over RT any day because of it "looking better", "being more vibrant/saturated" etc.

People should be able to change their vote if they want.

 

[Gerard]

Obviously raster CAN look better as well especially if you want a specific look in a part of a game, the rt version might be the real look, but that may well not be what the designers want in the scene.

 

[Nexus18]

Obviously raster CAN look better as well especially if you want a specific look in a part of a game, the rt version might be the real look, but that may well not be what the designers want in the scene.

I think we have pretty much hit the peak/best we can with rasterization now i.e. rdr 2 where as with what we have seen with RT currently, even with the likes of metro ee it is still just the tip of the iceberg then that is where it comes down to the developers workflow being hampered because of all the time and effort they would have to put into get something looking rdr 2 quality as opposed to a much quicker and easier implementation as shown by 4a enhanced video of them implementing RT.

 

[Gerard]

I think we have pretty much hit the peak/best we can with rasterization now i.e. rdr 2 where as with what we have seen with RT currently, even with the likes of metro ee it is still just the tip of the iceberg then that is where it comes down to the developers workflow being hampered because of all the time and effort they would have to put into get something looking rdr 2 quality as opposed to a much quicker and easier implementation as shown by 4a enhanced video of them implementing RT.

What I'm saying though is the artistic interpretation of a scene can look better than the realistic version of a scene. Ray tracing can give you how it should look, but it might not suit what the designers had in mind, especially for dramatic scenes or big reveals etc.

Regardless of what method is used if you want a specific look it's gonna take some tinkering if the realistic lighting method doesn't tickle the designers pickle.

 

[Nexus18]

What I'm saying though is the artistic interpretation of a scene can look better than the realistic version of a scene. Ray tracing can give you how it should look, but it might not suit what the designers had in mind, especially for dramatic scenes or big reveals etc.

True that, RT GI would be the main one for that I suppose where they would avoid it.

Some games with a bit of a cartoonish look/direction about them work rather well with "some" RT effects I find e.g. riftbreaker, the ascent and deathloop

 

[humbug]

Games are a form of art, good game developers put a lot of time and effort in to making their games look good, the art aspect of the game.

physically accurate lighting is not necessarily beautiful and if Ray Tracing becomes the standard for lighting in games we may loose that aspect of the art, especially if studios decide they can save money by not hiring lighting artists because, well, all you do is click a radio button and there you go, your scene is accurately lit, job done.

Digital foundry i think it was, scrutinised a large church window with RT lighting and traditional Screen Space GI, they had a lot to say about how the scene was lit correctly with RT vs not with Screen Space GI, and they did look very different, that's what they got all excited about, but to me at least Screen Space GI looked WAY better, much more art than the cold, blue, dark scene the RT render produced.

 

[sparkymark75]

Games are a form of art, good game developers put a lot of time and effort in to making their games look good, the art aspect of the game.

physically accurate lighting is not necessarily beautiful and if Ray Tracing becomes the standard for lighting in games we may loose that aspect of the art, especially if studios decide they can save money by not hiring lighting artists because, well, all you do is click a radio button and there you go, your scene is accurately lit, job done.

Digital foundry i think it was, scrutinised a large church window with RT lighting and traditional Screen Space GI, they had a lot to say about how the scene was lit correctly with RT vs not with Screen Space GI, and they did look very different, that's what they got all excited about, but to me at least Screen Space GI looked WAY better, much more art than the cold, blue, dark scene the RT render produced.

Yeah, sometimes real life can look drab and boring. Our eyes are drawn to over-saturated colours. Like poorly calibrated TVs in an electrical retailers!

 

[Nexus18]

Games are a form of art, good game developers put a lot of time and effort in to making their games look good, the art aspect of the game.

physically accurate lighting is not necessarily beautiful and if Ray Tracing becomes the standard for lighting in games we may loose that aspect of the art, especially if studios decide they can save money by not hiring lighting artists because, well, all you do is click a radio button and there you go, your scene is accurately lit, job done.

Digital foundry i think it was, scrutinised a large church window with RT lighting and traditional Screen Space GI, they had a lot to say about how the scene was lit correctly with RT vs not with Screen Space GI, and they did look very different, that's what they got all excited about, but to me at least Screen Space GI looked WAY better, much more art than the cold, blue, dark scene the RT render produced.

Is that DL 2 you're referring to I think?



It's one of those things where you need to be in the game and seeing your surroundings and light sources as you move around to appreciate why RT achieves a better looking result, at least to my eyes.

Dying Light 2 PC Tech Review: Graphics Analysis, Optimised Settings, Performance Tests!

Dying Light 2 on current-gen consoles is pretty great - but if effectively forces you to choose between resolution, 60fps or ray tracing features. The PC ver...

youtu.be

Part of the problem with DL 2 is the very limited light bounces, iirc, it's only 1 so it doesn't look as good as what it could. Would be good if they give you the option to up this or do a future RT only edition like metro ee.

Yeah, sometimes real life can look drab and boring. Our eyes are drawn to over-saturated colours. Like poorly calibrated TVs in an electrical retailers!

Pretty much, very much like real life, on a cloudy, rainy day, everything looks crap, on a bright blue sky kind of day, everything looks epic.

 

[Calin Banc]

Games are a form of art, good game developers put a lot of time and effort in to making their games look good, the art aspect of the game.

physically accurate lighting is not necessarily beautiful and if Ray Tracing becomes the standard for lighting in games we may loose that aspect of the art, especially if studios decide they can save money by not hiring lighting artists because, well, all you do is click a radio button and there you go, your scene is accurately lit, job done.

Digital foundry i think it was, scrutinised a large church window with RT lighting and traditional Screen Space GI, they had a lot to say about how the scene was lit correctly with RT vs not with Screen Space GI, and they did look very different, that's what they got all excited about, but to me at least Screen Space GI looked WAY better, much more art than the cold, blue, dark scene the RT render produced.

You can always manipulate light through the environment and its color. You can also color grade how you wish or chose a specific time of day for a certain scene. Nothing changes. It just works

I'd rather have something extremely easy to be done right than something that can be done "good enough", but with such an effort that only a couple of studios are able to - like RDR 2.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

physically accurate lighting is not necessarily beautiful and if Ray Tracing becomes the standard for lighting in games we may loose that aspect of the art, especially if studios decide they can save money by not hiring lighting artists because, well, all you do is click a radio button and there you go, your scene is accurately lit, job done.

There will always be lighting artists. The job will just be a little different in terms of specific tasks.

 

[Nexus18]

You can always manipulate light through the environment and its color. You can also color grade how you wish or chose a specific time of day for a certain scene. Nothing changes. It just works

I'd rather have something extremely easy to be done right than something that can be done "good enough", but with such an effort that only a couple of studios are able to - like RDR 2.

Exactly and the way things are nowadays especially with development, there is always a rush to get things done in order to meet deadlines. As noted earlier, imo, it won't so much be about benefiting us/consumers the eventual transition to only RT, it'll be the developers that dictate it for their own benefits. Indie developers are a big fan of nvidias RTX RT plugins, the developer for fabled woods posted on reddit how much quicker/easier it was to go this path than the usual way, especially since, iirc, it was nvidia who reached out to him to help.

 

[Harlequin]

interesting results on the overall meh of raytracing......

 

[eddyr]

I dunno about 'meh', it seems much the opposite. I interpret the poll as 74% interested/in favour of ray tracing.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

See below, it is purely based in the here and now as to whether you care for RT as a feature/tech. or not, of course all of what you said would come into consideration as to which option you vote for.

I may have to change my vote if it's based on the here and now. The option that says "not yet but in the future", I took that to mean sometime during my lifetime. But now I assume it means sometime during the next few months?

 

[Nexus18]

I may have to change my vote if it's based on the here and now. The option that says "not yet but in the future", I took that to mean sometime during my lifetime. But now I assume it means sometime during the next few months?

It can be at any time in the future, be that 2 months or 2 years or 20 years.

 

[Wrinkly]

I may have to change my vote if it's based on the here and now. The option that says "not yet but in the future", I took that to mean sometime during my lifetime. But now I assume it means sometime during the next few months?

I've had a great time playing raytraced titles since I got my 3080 and that was mostly with it plugged into a 10 year old 3770k system. So I guess we could travel backwards as well

Of course I'll change my yes to no if AMD ever get on top

Spoiler

BTW. That was just a joke!