Casual Unpopular Opinion Thread

I don't know if this is exactly an unpopular opinion, but I believe that raytracing, although impressive technology, will cause developers moving forward to become very lazy with regard to lightmapping for raster graphics and that raytracing is a massive waste of hardware resources. Even if you are looking at the coming 50 series from nVidia or already have a 4080ti or 4090, it makes no sense to use a feature that does nothing to improve the gameplay itself, or that can utilize light in ways we can't use raster graphics for. Take the light puzzles in Resident Evil 7 for example, there are light puzzles done with raster graphics that look very realistic, with no raytracing required. It really is absurd in my opinion and seems like a feature that will give developers another excuse to be sloppy with game design, expecting the hardware to chew on the poorly engineered code in their AAAA slop for the next few years.

It will eventually advance enough to have subsurface scatter and realistic light passing through flesh and other hyper-realistic features that I am looking forward to, but I suspect this will only come after another great gaming crash that will coincide with a declining world economy sliding ever closer to catastrophic war. I look forward to the far future, but the near future with raytracing seems decadent and completely unnecessary. If we apply AI to building lightmaps, we might be able to push raster graphics farther than ever, and think that developers should leave raytracing to feature length CGI movies or extreme graphics demos for testing instead of expecting to put these features in blockbuster games when the market isn't ready for that technology yet.
 
<original thread title: What is considered "overrated" that you think is underrated?>

Quite simple.
I'll start: Megalovania. It's a good song and deserves all the love it got plus move!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tempImagelLyyHK.jpg
 
Benry Gaming said:
Why not? Is this a meme I don't get or smothing
Click to expand...
It's not a meme. I believe that the small amount of "evidence" that Atheist scientists have for macroevolution isn't enough to warrant teaching it in public schools. I also believe that teaching macroevolution in schools is a violation of the 1st amendment; teachers aren't allowed to inform students of any alternate perspectives.
 
Glasia🌳 said:
PE is the most BS school subject on Earth. Mostly due to the teaching style.
Click to expand...
and because the girls who I know probably won't ever do anything in life are trying to spread false rumors about me and my friend and then claim they weren't talking about us. There's 1761 kids in this school, and if my calculations are right... there's less than a 1/1,000,000 chance of the rumors not being of us.
 
Green_Metaknight said:
I believe that the small amount of "evidence" that Atheist scientists have for macroevolution
Click to expand...
There is a very large amount of evidence supporting it. Please research it, if you want.
Green_Metaknight said:
teaching macroevolution in schools is a violation of the 1st amendment; teachers aren't allowed to inform students of any alternate perspectives.
Click to expand...
The first amendment does not say that. There is nothing in the first amendment, or even the whole Constitution that would make teaching this illegal. Actually, banning teaching macroevolution in school likely would violate the first amendment.
 
Benry Gaming said:
There is a very large amount of evidence supporting it. Please research it, if you want.
Click to expand...
I've done plenty of research.
I don't want to get in a big argument here though, so I recommend that you look up Creationist arguments against macroevolution in addition to looking up Evolutionist arguments against Creationism.
Benry Gaming said:
The first amendment does not say that. There is nothing in the first amendment, or even the whole Constitution that would make teaching this illegal. Actually, banning teaching macroevolution in school likely would violate the first amendment.
Click to expand...
I probably should have worded that better; I don't mean that teaching macroevolution should be illegal, I'm saying that people should be taught about both Atheist and Creationist perspectives, rather than what schools are doing currently; only telling the Atheist perspective, and saying that it's unquestionably true with no real evidence against it.
ethan2🥐🌳🐿 said:
They should teach both a religion class and a science class in schools, which would give kids, and by extention, people, more information and help them choose what they want to believe better, and how to believe, better.
Click to expand...
I agree to some extent, but I don't think they should be so separated; religion classes should mention scientific disagreements that vary depending on religion, and science classes should talk about non-Atheist perspectives.
Science and religion are not opposed to each other; that's just what Atheist-influenced school curriculums want you to think.
 
Green_Metaknight said:
I've done plenty of research.
I don't want to get in a big argument here though, so I recommend that you look up Creationist arguments against macroevolution in addition to looking up Evolutionist arguments against Creationism.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but there is basically no objective evidence I can find against it. If you have some, please link it to me or something.
Green_Metaknight said:
people should be taught about both Atheist and Creationist perspectives, rather than what schools are doing currently; only telling the Atheist perspective, and saying that it's unquestionably true with no real evidence against it.
Click to expand...
First of all, macroevolution is not an "atheist perspective", a large number of scientists, including the ones who helped develop and support the theory, are not atheists. Second of all, schools are supposed to only teach objective things, they can't teach things that are personal and subjective to many different people, that's not the point of school. Macroevolution is based on objective evidence, which is why it's appropriate to teach in a school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom