DX11 shadows a useless and annoying feature, why do you hate us GGG
" From all that Chris has said, I would guess the shadows are here to stay for the DX11 client. " " No where has he suggested the shadows are just a test/may be optional later. For a lot of people the 64 bit client has provide significant improvements, however, for those who want an option to play without shadows, the inferior 32 bit DX9 client is, to all intents and purposes, the only option. Personally, I wish GGG would just out and tell us whether, the missing option for disabling shadows in te 64 bit client, is there by design or is a technical limitation they can't/won't fix. I'd also suggest the purpose of a beta test is just that, testing and providing feedback. Waiting for the client to 'go live' before making suggestions or asking for clarification regarding game-play, would be a pretty ineffective way of doing things, by that point, it's a done deal. |
![]() |
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but a few things probably bear mentioning.
There are two distinct criticisms being conflated as one: 1) The DX11 client does not permit disabling shadows. 2) The DX11 client delivers crummy performance (and we assume this is due to shadows). Criticism #2 cannot truly be delivered until the client is out of beta. And criticism #1 is only relevant if our assumption about criticism #2 is correct. Which we cannot say for certain, even if the existing DX9 client delivers large performance differentials with shadows enabled/disabled. I certainly do not have a reputation for being a white knight on these forums, but I am a firm believer in crucifying people for their sins AFTER they have committed them. A 1.0 release is not a final release, by any means, as we all know. But it is the first release after which point you can start swearing at people for screwing up. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
![]() |
now that the DX11 final version is out, it's clear that disabling shadows worsen performance. GGG's reasoning behind not allowing shadows to be turned off is totally unconvincing.
|
![]() |