Back to General and Gameplay Programming

Why should game data be so large?

MatrixCubed · 2001-06-19T10:12:59

Back in the day, game media was nothing spectacular. We had bitmapped 8-bit palettized textures for graphics, 22kHz wave files for sound, and various sorts of game level design that was meant to be compact so that data may be parsed easily (ever read tech docs on Ultima 7? Very well designed map system). Compression for different media became the norm in non-timecritical applications (music, internet graphics, amateur photography), until the hardware technology caught up. Now we have (in a few cases) gHz processors, gigatexels-rendered-per-second GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of system memory installed on many gamers'' home systems. Processing said media should take next to no time, if optimization of loader-libraries is even remotely clever. Now, we have MP3, TGA, AVI, and so on... compression for sound, textures, video. Game levels tend to get bigger and more complex (higher poly-count models, more texture coordinates for higher detailed models, and so on). Seems that the ratio of space allocated to media opposed to game data has inverted (ever play Baldur''s Gate? 5 CDs later you learned why it deserves a nomination for Huge Game of the Decade ). But other factors apply, too... I don''t know of many games that could match or surpass Ultima 7''s depth and detail, and this game fit on ~50mb of disk space. Nor are there games that might have more to do in them than Daggerfall, or have more literature in them than (insert any 1980''s RPG here). Even the original Quake, whose later upgrades included an OpenGL port and innumerable add-ons, had more depth than some of the games out today. ("Serious Sam"? Come on... it''s a pretty Quake clone. At least the Space Marine has an axe.) So what is the bottom line? Games have more eyecandy and must look prettier than the next guy? If games 10 years ago were so popular because they were fun, how does improving their graphics and video to realistic proportions improve gameplay? Prettier game boxes don''t sell; how many gamers spend hours gazing longingly at screenshots on the box when they could be interacting with those environments directly? Just some thoughts... game data and content should never be sacrificed for game play. MatrixCubedhttp://MatrixCubed.org

General and Gameplay Programming Programming

Started by MatrixCubed June 12, 2001 06:38 PM

10 comments, last by MatrixCubed 23 years, 7 months ago

ironfroggy

122

June 18, 2001 09:22 AM

Whats all this talk with the new entries in the industry not understanding these things? I''ve been ranting about this sort of things for years and I''m only 17. Graphics do need to look good, but gameplay needs to be even better! And, sure, most harddrives can hold those big games, well, game at least. Once you start actually playing more than ONE game, thats when better compression would come in handy! We can do alot better in terms of formats.

(http://www.ironfroggy.com/)(http://www.ironfroggy.com/pinch)

Nibbles

569

June 19, 2001 10:12 AM

Ever play Kings Quest 6: Heir today, Gone Tomorrow? I loved that game. I was positively hooked, and I still would be if I could remember where I put the damn disks (lost em a few years ago... very pissed off). It didn''t have beautiful graphics, not bad enough to hurt your eyes though.

Oh, as for Serious Sam, I think it''s cute.

Scott

Email
Website

"If you try and don''t succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried."

Stellar Sprites - Unity 2D Procedural Spaceship and Planets

Scott Wojtowicz - [http://scottw.comli.com/wp_dev/]

Why should game data be so large?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Why should game data be so large?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines