While I agree that 100gb is big this is such a weird take. I’m no game making expert but you’re comparing games that used low bitrate audio (no voice over for the most part) had 2D sprites, and 3D characters with 300 polys max to games that use HD textures, have high poly detailed characters, use high bitrate audio (most games have thousands of lines of dialogue) and pre rendered cutscenes that are usually even higher quality than the games graphics. There is just so much more than there use to be and such higher quality. It’s like saying pamphlets are better than books because I can shove more of them in my bag.
A lot of games for early consoles and PCs also had to optimise and squeeze the last few kilobytes out of the space that was available to them in distribution - which forced some devs to compromise on quality and others became extremely crafty and made completely novel approaches for data compression at the time. This may be just my personal opinion but i feel like games that pushed the envelope, furthered mechanics and technology beyond what everybody else was doing and therefore needed smart devs with good ideas to actually pull it off… just were more fun to play.
Today studios can throw assets like you described uncompressed on a server and call it a day, less consideration, faster development turnover, better for the publishers but probably not as polished of a game.
Not saying that only uber-brainiacs who can code in 10 different assembly dialects should make games but rather that more bigger, more polys, more resolution, more everything is not always better.
Pamphlets are indeed better imo if they convey the same information as a 500 page book that describes everything in excruciating detail 🙃
Pamphlets are indeed better imo if they convey the same information as a 500 page book that describes everything in excruciating detail 🙃
I guess you’ve got me there. I do prefer straight to the point if it’s just giving me factiy information. But for a story like In a game I feel the “book” would still be my choice. The details is what makes it good (for most games).
you’re comparing games that used low bitrate audio
It is a weird take. It’s a rant meant to amuse.
I’m not actually mad that any game in 2024 takes up 100GB.
I am kinda mad, if it’s true, that the development kit takes up 100GB. That’s insane to use up 100GB before adding a single piece of the actual game.
I also am a little cranky that a game about cartoon pirates is asking for 100GB.
I’ve heard it’s an amazing game about cartoon pirates. But still…100GB for cartoon pirates. I’ve never thought to myself “this cartoon game about pirates isn’t realistic enough”, or “gee, I hope this cartoon game about pirates has full video voice acted cut-scenes.”
I’m willing to accept that I’m wrong about this, but I won’t find out until I pick up a bigger SD card and don’t mind the storage cost so much. (Which I’m not, at this moment, planning to bother doing for this cartoon game about pirates.)
While I agree that 100gb is big this is such a weird take. I’m no game making expert but you’re comparing games that used low bitrate audio (no voice over for the most part) had 2D sprites, and 3D characters with 300 polys max to games that use HD textures, have high poly detailed characters, use high bitrate audio (most games have thousands of lines of dialogue) and pre rendered cutscenes that are usually even higher quality than the games graphics. There is just so much more than there use to be and such higher quality. It’s like saying pamphlets are better than books because I can shove more of them in my bag.
A lot of games for early consoles and PCs also had to optimise and squeeze the last few kilobytes out of the space that was available to them in distribution - which forced some devs to compromise on quality and others became extremely crafty and made completely novel approaches for data compression at the time. This may be just my personal opinion but i feel like games that pushed the envelope, furthered mechanics and technology beyond what everybody else was doing and therefore needed smart devs with good ideas to actually pull it off… just were more fun to play. Today studios can throw assets like you described uncompressed on a server and call it a day, less consideration, faster development turnover, better for the publishers but probably not as polished of a game. Not saying that only uber-brainiacs who can code in 10 different assembly dialects should make games but rather that more bigger, more polys, more resolution, more everything is not always better.
Pamphlets are indeed better imo if they convey the same information as a 500 page book that describes everything in excruciating detail 🙃
I guess you’ve got me there. I do prefer straight to the point if it’s just giving me factiy information. But for a story like In a game I feel the “book” would still be my choice. The details is what makes it good (for most games).
It is a weird take. It’s a rant meant to amuse.
I’m not actually mad that any game in 2024 takes up 100GB.
I am kinda mad, if it’s true, that the development kit takes up 100GB. That’s insane to use up 100GB before adding a single piece of the actual game.
I also am a little cranky that a game about cartoon pirates is asking for 100GB.
I’ve heard it’s an amazing game about cartoon pirates. But still…100GB for cartoon pirates. I’ve never thought to myself “this cartoon game about pirates isn’t realistic enough”, or “gee, I hope this cartoon game about pirates has full video voice acted cut-scenes.”
I’m willing to accept that I’m wrong about this, but I won’t find out until I pick up a bigger SD card and don’t mind the storage cost so much. (Which I’m not, at this moment, planning to bother doing for this cartoon game about pirates.)
Fair enough, and I do see where you’re coming from. The game itself is pretty fun, but it is rather large.