• doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m glad we all had this thought together. “Can we make this run doom…?” It’s rare that the answer is truly no, but this is probably a case.

    • Chobbes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Am I the only one super unimpressed by most “it can run doom” things? It’s either some beefy arm CPU or a total hack where it isn’t really running doom and they shoved a raspberry pi in it or something.

      • Fisk400@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is because most things can’t run doom without modification. I’m fine with adding stuff but displays and inputs need to be on the hardware and the thing must look like its untampered with. For me it’s just a funny magic trick so I’m not that bothered if it’s faked

        • Chobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel almost entirely the opposite about this. I feel like adding a display or inputs is fine, but if you want to say you have Doom running on a toaster then it damn well better be running on a chip that’s actually in the toaster! If you just stuff a Pi in a toaster then it’s not really the toaster running Doom at all, it’s a Raspberry Pi in a toaster suit. I feel like “can it run Doom” is interesting when it shows that common devices have more powerful chips in them than you realize and that somebody hacked it to run arbitrary code. It’s sort of an interesting metric to show how far we’ve come with computers, and how optimized Doom can be… I personally don’t find it that interesting if you’re just shoving a single board computer into a weird form factor, and it always just feels like clickbait to me.