• 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • Well, there are a couple of caveats to that. One is that it’s far from the first time an emulator has been taken down for similar reasons and it’s historically been pretty ineffective in the grand scheme, especially when alternative forks are available. “Far reaching consequences” is a bit of an overstatement, at least for those of us that went down into the Bleem! mines back in the day. There is a chance that you may be connecting things that aren’t that directly connected here.

    The second is that you’re still misrepresenting people not acting out their annoyance the way you’d like with people not being annoyed. I’m not here defending Nintendo, this sucks. I’m here saying that I don’t want to shame Nintendo into the same awkward gray area Google as an intermediary and every other IP holder currently inhabits, I want actually effective regulation that protects legitimate content creators from IP abuse, including from predatory corporations. You are looking to perform outrage in a room of like-minded people, and I get that you want to vent, but it’s not particularly useful to get mad at people that agree with you for not being in your same emotional level while they do.



  • I did not claim that creating an emulator is illegal. You don’t sue people for a crime, either. “Illegal” and “criminal” are different concepts, and making an emulator without tapping into proprietary assets is neither.

    We don’t know what Nintendo used to threaten Ryujinx, so we don’t know how likely it is that they would have won. We do know the Yuzu guys messed up and gave them a better shot than in the other times they have failed at this exact play.

    You are very mad at an argument nobody is making.


  • They are absolutely within their rights to approach the developers of Ryujinx and threaten to sue them. Based on how things have worked so far they’d lose, and I agreee with you that the inequality in that interaction is terrible and should be addressed.

    On the Yuzu scenario it’s more relevant, because of the specific proprietary elements found in the emulator.

    And then there’s Nintendo targeting emulation-based handhelds and streamers for featuring emulated footage of their first party games on Youtube videos, which falls directly under the mess that is copyright enforcement under Youtube and other social platforms.

    In all of those cases, a clearer, more rules-based organization of IP that explicitly covers these scenarios would have helped people defend against Nintendo’s overreach, or at least have a clearer picture of what they can do about it. We can’t go on forever relying on custom, subjective judicial interpretation and non-enforcement. We’re way overdue on a rules-based agreement of what can and can’t be done with media online.

    The worst part is… we kinda know. There is a custom-based baseline for it we’ve slowly acquired over time. It’s just not properly codified, it exists in EULAs and unspoken, unenforceable practices. It’s an amazing gap in what is a ridiculously massive cultural and economic segment. It’s crazy that we’re running on “do you feel lucky?” when it comes to deciding if a corporation claiming you can’t do a thing on the Internet that involves media. We need to know what we’re allowed to do so we can say “no” when predatory corporations like Nintendo show up to enforce rights they don’t have or shouldn’t have.


  • Yeeeah, Nintendo sucks.

    And it sucks that, despite this not killing the distribution of Yuzu or Ryujinx forks it does make them less safe and reliable for users, as well as hindering ongoing development.

    Ultimately, though, Nintendo is acting within their rights. Which is not an endorsement, it’s proof that modern copyright frameworks are broken and unfit for purpose in an online world. We need a refoundation of IP. Not to make everything freely accessible, necessarily, but to make it make sense online instead of having to rely on voluntary non-enforcement. I don’t care if it’s Youtube or emulation development, you should know if your project is legal and safe before you have lawyers showing up at your door with offers you can’t refuse.







  • Honestly, I can only speak for myself, but 7R felt actively bad to play to me. Them trying to split the difference between a turn based RPG and an action game just made everything feel weird and slow, the way animation priority works on it is super unsatisfying and I really don’t click with how a lot of it is paced. Plus it’s been ages since anyone made a proper spectacle-focused turn-based RPG, and this was a missed opportunity, honestly. Persona looks stylish and great, but it’s not going for the same thing.

    That, as a result, made me not want to jump into the sequel, because I never finished the original and people were telling me they play the same.

    XVI is a bit of a different beast, I just wasn’t in a hurry to play it because… yay another action RPG form Square that probably doesn’t play great, but I did want to check it out, so I waited for the PC port that just came out and got that. Still haven’t gotten into it. I hope it’s good. It seems to be doing fine on Steam, but it also looks extremely expensive to make, so if they say it didn’t work I believe them, I suppose.


  • So the gimmick in the 7 remakes is that they aren’t a remake at all, they are a weird alternate reality spin-off thing that revisits the same characters and locations. I mean, mild spoilers for a four year old game you haven’t played at least partially because you didn’t know this.

    The way they presented this was very weird and they tried to split the difference between still saying it’s all a remake but then hinting at it not being a remake sometimes slightly.

    My biggest problem with these is that combat feels laggy and weird and I would much prefer a proper turn based RPG in the first place, but seeing the comments here is a bit of an eye opener about how it was all perceived.




  • MSAA is pretty solid, but it has its own quirks and it’s super heavy for how well it works. There’s a reason we moved on from it and towards TAA eventually. And DLSS is, honestly, just very good TAA, Nvidia marketing aside.

    I am very confused about the concept of “fake perfromance”. If the animation looks smooth to you then it’s smooth. None of it exists in real life. Like every newfangled visual tech, it’s super in-your-face until you get used to it. Frankly, I’ve stopped thinking about it on the games where I do use it, and I use it whenever it’s available. If you want to argue about increased latency we can talk about it, but I personally don’t notice it much in most games as long as it’s relatively consistent.

    I do understand the feeling of having to worry about performance and being hyper-aware of it being annoying, but as we’ve litigated up and down this thread, that ship sailed for PC gaming. If you don’t want to have to worry, the real answer is getting a console, I’m afraid.


  • Yeah, optimizing for scalability is the only sane choice from the dev side when you’re juggling hardware ranging from the Switch and the Steam Deck to the bananas nonsense insanity that is the 4090. And like I said earlier, often you don’t even get different binaries or drivers for those, the same game has to support all of it at once.

    It’s true that there are still some set targets along the way. The PS5 is one, the Switch is one if you support it, the Steam Deck is there if you’re aiming to support low power gaming. But that’s besides the point, the PS5 alone requires two to three setups to be designed, implemented and tested. PC compatibility testing is a nightmare at the best of times, and with a host of display refresh rates, arbitrary resolutions and all sorts of integrated and dedicated GPUs from three different vendors expected to get support it’s outright impossible to do granularly. The idea that PC games have become less supported or supportive of scalability is absurd. I remember the days where a game would support one GPU. As in, the one. If you had any other one it was software rendering at best. Sometimes you had to buy a separate box for each supported card.

    We got used to the good stuff during the 900 series and 1000 series from Nvidia basically running console games maxed out at 1080p60, but that was a very brief slice of time, it’s gone and it’s not coming back.


  • Yeah, although I am always reluctant to quantify visual quality like that. What is “65% better” in terms of a game playing smoothly or looking good?

    The PS5 Pro reveal was a disaster, partially because if you’re trying to demonstrate how much nicer a higher resolution, higher framerate experience is, a heavily compressed, low bitrate Youtube video that most people are going to watch at 1080p or lower is not going to do it. I have no doubt that you can tell how much smoother or less aliased an image is on the Pro. But that doesn’t meant the returns scale linearly, you’re right about that. I can tell a 4K picture from a 1080p one, but I can REALLY tell a 480p image from a 1080p one. And it’s one thing to add soft shadows to a picture and another to add textures to a flat polygon.

    If anything, gaming as hobby has been a tech thing for so long that we’re not ready to have shift to being limited by money and artistic quality rather than processing power. Arguably this entire conversation is pointless in that the best looking game of 2024 is Thank Goodness You’re Here, and it’s not even close.


  • Yep. The thing is, even if you’re on high end hardware doing offline CGI you’re using these techniques for denoising. If you’re doing academic research you’re probably upscaling with machine learning.

    People get stuck on the “AI” nonsense, but ultimately you need upscaling and denoising of some sort to render certain tier of visuals. You want the highest quality version of that you can fit in your budgeted frame time. If that is using machine learning, great. If it isn’t, great as well. It’s all tensor math anyways, it’s about using your GPU compute in the most efficient way you can.