XVI and XIV implications

[Ath192]

I am no developer or anything but I would imagine there is only so much they can do to have the game perform on varying levels of hardware. I don't think it's possible to do have incredibly advanced lighting or physics engines be downgraded to run on lower performance machines, and older models and software can only be polished up so much. In the end getting this game to look like XVI on top of the line machines while still being able to run lower performance machines just isn't a reality.

You are right, you are no developer. A lot of things can be turned on or off altogether to run on lesser hardware.

This is how Modern Warfare II can run on a toaster on minimum specs and tax a 4090 in 4K simultaneously with full on Ray tracing and max textures.

Here are the minimum specifications needed to play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II:

OS: Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update)
CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 / Core i5-2500K or AMD Ryzen 3 1200
RAM: 8 GB
Hi-Rez Assets Cache: Up to 32 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 or AMD Radeon RX 470
Video Memory: 2 GB

In fact, Sandy Bridge released in 2011 seen above which is 12 year old hardware and yet this is their recommended 4K setup:

Ultra 4K Specifications
The Ultra specs to run the game at a high FPS in 4K resolution:

OS: Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update) or Windows 11 64 Bit (latest update)
CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K or AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
RAM: 16 GB
Hi-Rez Assets Cache: Up to 64 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 or AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Video Memory: 10 GB

Of which the video cards are from last gen ~2 years old, so they effectively run a full decade of hardware specs.

-----------------------------------
1. As they should
2. As FFXIV should

It will only make everyone happy, so I don't get what people get off on from naysaying or arguing against it.

[SieyaM]

You are right, you are no developer. A lot of things can be turned on or off altogether to run on lesser hardware.

This is how Modern Warfare II can run on a toaster on minimum specs and tax a 4090 in 4K simultaneously with full on Ray tracing and max textures.

Here are the minimum specifications needed to play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II:

OS: Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update)
CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 / Core i5-2500K or AMD Ryzen 3 1200
RAM: 8 GB
Hi-Rez Assets Cache: Up to 32 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 or AMD Radeon RX 470
Video Memory: 2 GB

In fact, Sandy Bridge released in 2011 seen above which is 12 year old hardware and yet this is their recommended 4K setup:

Ultra 4K Specifications
The Ultra specs to run the game at a high FPS in 4K resolution:

OS: Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update) or Windows 11 64 Bit (latest update)
CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K or AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
RAM: 16 GB
Hi-Rez Assets Cache: Up to 64 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 or AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Video Memory: 10 GB

Of which the video cards are from last gen ~2 years old, so they effectively run a full decade of hardware specs.

-----------------------------------
1. As they should
2. As FFXIV should

It will only make everyone happy, so I don't get what people get off on from naysaying or arguing against it.

And you're suggesting that they can bring XIV up to that level without redesigning it, just polish up the models and lighting engine and it's ready to go?

[Ath192]

And you're suggesting that they can bring XIV up to that level without redesigning it, just polish up the models and lighting engine and it's ready to go?

They can. Not saying they will. We’ll find out in 20 days anyways. If they did, we would all benefit from it. If they added ray tracing and more recently Nvidia reflex to WoW which is an older game I don’t see why they couldn’t.

We really as whole need to stop settling for mediocrity. I just showed evidence of a game actively doing something like this and instead of agreeing it would be cool you continue questioning it.

The answer is it always depends on how much effort they put into things. Let’s hope for the best.

[Eorzean_username]

They can. Not saying they will. [...] The answer is it always depends on how much effort they put into things. [...] I just showed evidence of a game actively doing something like this and instead of agreeing it would be cool you continue questioning it.

I think that this starts from the erroneous premise that all games are created equal, and therefore, all games can do the exact same things with their engines and systems.

But "Arbitrary Game A did this, therefore Game B can do this" seems like an oversimplified leap of logic.

How "scalable" XIV's graphics can truly become ultimately depends, at least in part, on decisions made when they first began creating it, which can linger long/deep into the future development processes; as well as other factors, like what their specific team can actually handle implementing.

As well, remember that — for example — things like texture and model changes only tend to remain "legacy" for so long. After a while, the workflow of building everything twice, or continuing to support outdated alternatives, tends to be deemed too costly, and chopped-out.

Usually, when the system ceiling increases in a game — especially an "indefinite-service" game like XIV — the floor inevitably gets pulled up as well, even if there's a time-lag to it.

All of this will factor into how much / how far any graphical revamp gets taken, and what portions of it can and can't be fine-tuned at the individual client level.

We really as whole need to stop settling for mediocrity.

I think that it's just become cynical and self-defensive realism at this point for a lot of people. Expecting too much from SE/CBU3 results in severe disappointment; expecting the bare-minimum possible can sometimes result in pleasant surprises.

[Ath192]

expecting the bare-minimum possible can sometimes result in pleasant surprises.

You know there is something to be said about settling for scraps. And I don’t mean that ironically. Players who do this will forever be surprised and delighted.

Since I play other games I can’t quite ignore how crap the graphics have become but it ultimately depends on the person.

[RitsukoSonoda]

You know there is something to be said about settling for scraps. And I don’t mean that ironically. Players who do this will forever be surprised and delighted.

Since I play other games I can’t quite ignore how crap the graphics have become but it ultimately depends on the person.

At the same time with trends with large businesses nowadays if people settle on expecting the bare minimum then the business will only provide the bare minimum because it's cheaper and less work or effort.

Friend of mine's comment made me chuckle a bit.

"Square did this same experiment back in the SNES days when they made Final Fantasy Mystic Quest as a FF game geared towards western audiences. Short game/story that was extremely stripped down mechanically to be easier. Western audiences weren't really pleased with it with many feeling insulted. The only thing they really changed this time around with FF16 was using a prettier wrapper and providing opportunities to button mash but now it seems Western audiences want to label it game of the year."

[R041]

At the same time with trends with large businesses nowadays if people settle on expecting the bare minimum then the business will only provide the bare minimum because it's cheaper and less work or effort.

Friend of mine's comment made me chuckle a bit.

"Square did this same experiment back in the SNES days when they made Final Fantasy Mystic Quest as a FF game geared towards western audiences. Short game/story that was extremely stripped down mechanically to be easier. Western audiences weren't really pleased with it with many feeling insulted. The only thing they really changed this time around with FF16 was using a prettier wrapper and providing opportunities to button mash but now it seems Western audiences want to label it game of the year."

Oh god it clicked, FF16 really is the new Mystic Quest. lol