you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 110 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Lack of optimization, and crazy texture packs

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Audio is another big one. If you want good quality music and your game is voice acted you would be surprised how much space all those audio files take. Add in tons of other gigabytes if you offer voice acting for other languages.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 43 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    They optimized for things other than install size. Optimization is often choosing one thing at the expense of others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    they optimized for least effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    When time is money, optimizing for time is a worthwhile endeavor. 6+ year dev cycles aren't something anyone wants. But realistically, large file sizes probably aren't going away with more dev time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    6+ years dev cycles is something I am comfortable with, because I want something done well, and if it's something big enough (like Cyberpunk 2077 or Baldur's Gate), then of course it will take a long time, even with big command team

    But I still haven't figured out another end of such a deal: how to keep all the command team members alive, fed and comfortable for this long time? Buying a game once, even multiplied by whatever-count-of-copies-they-have-sold-for-now, doesn't give a guarantee that all those people have enough money to just keep creating something exciting for as long as it takes

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Pray tell, how do you think "they" should optimize game assets? People who have zero experience in game development love to talk about "optimization" like it's a slider in the options or some challenge that can be solved by throwing resources at it. Modern compression algorithms like Oodle are about as performant and artifact-free as mathematically possible. Everything beyond that is a trade-off between quality, size, and performance.

    But are you thinking about it in abstract? Would you prefer a game to have occasional pop-in, stutter issues, and CPU spikes in exchange for a smaller size?

    (edit) Before you say it, I know there are relatively low-fidelity games that run like ass. Those are usually caused by poorly written game logic or shader codes, which can be refactored, but won't have an effect on file sizes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Hey, listen to OP and turn your file compression spider up at least 50%

    I remember jak and daxter being amazing because they optimized to not have loading screens (unless you teleported). First time I remember that in a 3d game

    edit: it stays :3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    And a huge number of art assets in general. These days in the AAA industry the artists work much faster than the designers and programmers, so by the time the designers and programmers have finished their part, the art team has had time to make 3-4 times as many assets as they really need.

  • source
  • parent