It’s not just optimization, but my mind immediately went to that 300GB cod install, that also streams textures from the internet, and there is absolutely no fucking way that they even thought of trying to optimize shit.
I’ve got CDs, DVDs and multi-packs from like 2001 to 2012? That handled huge worlds with high res textures and often required just a single disk (FUEL comes to mind). But it’s like with the release of gta 5, devs and their publishers just stopped caring. 85, 120, 165, 210, 300, fuck it why not? Compression? What’s that? So what if one 2048x2048 texture is 86MB, it’s not our problem.
The ‘remaster’ of NFS Hot Pursuit looks worse than the original, costs the same, and takes more disk space. Like what the fuck is happening to this industry? I get ‘line go up’ but you have to be fucking shitting me at this point.
I mean, blu-ray disks of 100gb exist, and 200 has been proven possible two decades ago… All that would be required is for devs to care. Even if it needed ‘just’ 150gb, that’s 1 install disk and 1 install + play disk, which is a concept that is like 25 years old now.
I have no idea why you’re getting upvoted… You keep saying optimisation, but for what?
Mind referencing where the 86mb claim comes from?
They’re either likely including different scaled images, to help accommodate different video card VRAM configurations, or, full quality that gets scaled as required. My guess would be a few differently scaled images, as you wouldn’t pull in 4K images for Scenary that is in the background for a game, and then rescale in realtime if you’re not running with much VRAM (similar to icons, they have multiple scaled images too).
You’ve picked a bad example (EA), but there are plenty of remastered games that are absolutely fantastic compared to the original, like Command and conquer (obviously though, VRAM isn’t an issue there). That isn’t even the first NFS dud though (a lot of them were garbage after HP). In fact, Fairly sure I bought the latest one and it doesn’t run correctly on my Rog Ally X (even when set to 30W).
One other consideration is that we’re also playing games in 4K these days, which absolutely makes a difference to 1080p.
We all look back fondly to games from 20 years ago which blew our minds away, but, if you replay them, you’ll absolutely see the difference. My mind was blown with Half-life 2 as an example, but, I started playing it again, and the quality difference is DEFINITELY obvious to modern games. Similar to when you switched from glide to OpenGL on Half-life 1, and it felt too crisp (and was better quality, but uglier)
Previously low resolution make things look better, and reduced expectations, but its blurring and such obscured bad textures. With 4K, even in movies, every pimple and bruise now shows clearly on camera, and blocky textures are obviously. CGI in movies becomes blatantly obvious too (watch the matrix 2 as an example). That’s why resolution matters a lot more now.
Serious question, do you seriously think image lossy compression is difficult for game developers? lol
To an extent, but there is a clear ‘fuck it, why bother’ mentality
20 year difference
Correct, but the graph for time vs quality is not linear, and yet the data size seems to be going off the charts
resolution matters
But not to the extent of the size of the content. A game that was 50 gigs a decade ago now has a release three times as large, but it’s not three times the quality (be it gfx, audio fidelity, multi-player experience, or enjoyment). What it is doing is filling up your storage so that you have less of a choice in how you spend your time.
lossy compression
Oddly specific question but I will again point out games like FUEL that had an enormous map for the time and pretty nice visuals, and were able to cram it onto just a dvd. Blur is another, gfx that still hold up today at modern resolutions, one disk. But, to again reiterate the statement, devs don’t give a shit. It’s not that these are difficult tasks, but why bother when space is abundant and, again, if the size of your game means they play it instead of being able to install another competing game, it’s a bonus.
It’s not just optimization, but my mind immediately went to that 300GB cod install, that also streams textures from the internet, and there is absolutely no fucking way that they even thought of trying to optimize shit.
I’ve got CDs, DVDs and multi-packs from like 2001 to 2012? That handled huge worlds with high res textures and often required just a single disk (FUEL comes to mind). But it’s like with the release of gta 5, devs and their publishers just stopped caring. 85, 120, 165, 210, 300, fuck it why not? Compression? What’s that? So what if one 2048x2048 texture is 86MB, it’s not our problem.
The ‘remaster’ of NFS Hot Pursuit looks worse than the original, costs the same, and takes more disk space. Like what the fuck is happening to this industry? I get ‘line go up’ but you have to be fucking shitting me at this point.
let’s face it, no amount of optimisation will make gta 6 fit in a disk
I mean, blu-ray disks of 100gb exist, and 200 has been proven possible two decades ago… All that would be required is for devs to care. Even if it needed ‘just’ 150gb, that’s 1 install disk and 1 install + play disk, which is a concept that is like 25 years old now.
Like 3 games should not fill a 1TB drive.
GTA III (and VC) came on 2 discs ffs.
I have no idea why you’re getting upvoted… You keep saying optimisation, but for what?
Mind referencing where the 86mb claim comes from?
They’re either likely including different scaled images, to help accommodate different video card VRAM configurations, or, full quality that gets scaled as required. My guess would be a few differently scaled images, as you wouldn’t pull in 4K images for Scenary that is in the background for a game, and then rescale in realtime if you’re not running with much VRAM (similar to icons, they have multiple scaled images too).
You’ve picked a bad example (EA), but there are plenty of remastered games that are absolutely fantastic compared to the original, like Command and conquer (obviously though, VRAM isn’t an issue there). That isn’t even the first NFS dud though (a lot of them were garbage after HP). In fact, Fairly sure I bought the latest one and it doesn’t run correctly on my Rog Ally X (even when set to 30W).
One other consideration is that we’re also playing games in 4K these days, which absolutely makes a difference to 1080p.
We all look back fondly to games from 20 years ago which blew our minds away, but, if you replay them, you’ll absolutely see the difference. My mind was blown with Half-life 2 as an example, but, I started playing it again, and the quality difference is DEFINITELY obvious to modern games. Similar to when you switched from glide to OpenGL on Half-life 1, and it felt too crisp (and was better quality, but uglier)
Previously low resolution make things look better, and reduced expectations, but its blurring and such obscured bad textures. With 4K, even in movies, every pimple and bruise now shows clearly on camera, and blocky textures are obviously. CGI in movies becomes blatantly obvious too (watch the matrix 2 as an example). That’s why resolution matters a lot more now.
Serious question, do you seriously think image lossy compression is difficult for game developers? lol
Literally the first line of that comment
Just an off the cuff example
That was a thing 20 years ago too, not an excuse
I picked what I know best
To an extent, but there is a clear ‘fuck it, why bother’ mentality
Correct, but the graph for time vs quality is not linear, and yet the data size seems to be going off the charts
But not to the extent of the size of the content. A game that was 50 gigs a decade ago now has a release three times as large, but it’s not three times the quality (be it gfx, audio fidelity, multi-player experience, or enjoyment). What it is doing is filling up your storage so that you have less of a choice in how you spend your time.
Oddly specific question but I will again point out games like FUEL that had an enormous map for the time and pretty nice visuals, and were able to cram it onto just a dvd. Blur is another, gfx that still hold up today at modern resolutions, one disk. But, to again reiterate the statement, devs don’t give a shit. It’s not that these are difficult tasks, but why bother when space is abundant and, again, if the size of your game means they play it instead of being able to install another competing game, it’s a bonus.