• Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s not just optimization

    Literally the first line of that comment

    86mb

    Just an off the cuff example

    full res vs scaled

    That was a thing 20 years ago too, not an excuse

    remasters

    I picked what I know best

    resolution

    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.