44 ms·

Meanwhile the latest Call of Duty doesn't fit in a 256GB SSD. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cod-modern-warfare-doesnt-fit-on-a-single-250gb-ssd-anymore/110

by josu 6y ago

Meanwhile the latest Call of Duty doesn't fit in a 256GB SSD. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cod-modern-warfare-doesnt-fit-on-a-single-250gb-ssd-anymore/1100-6482933/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/cod-modern-warfare-doesnt-...

rdlfo 6y ago
Given the amount of unique objects and texture maps in the game, this is not a surprise, specially thinking that graphics are the biggest selling points of today's consoles.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  sometimes even non unique objects are duped for sake of fast loading times too.
  - Pulcinella 6y ago
    I’ve heard it’s literally this. Every asset is duplicated for every map or level it appears in to speed up load times and to make it easier for development teams to work independently on different maps without stepping on each others toes. Also the assets aren’t compressed for faster load times, especially on console. Don’t know how true it is.
    - gameswithgo 6y ago
      for large "open world" games, you sometimes dupe things to lay out the data in memory to be near each other when the items are near each other in the world, so you can stream data in or chunk it in efficiently. If a player drives toward a city you have to be able to load all the buildings and mailboxes in without any pause. it isn't easy
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      It's pretty much a straight trade of load times vs storage— didn't matter back when games were streamed from disk, but it sucks now that they're installed. It's just that load times are measurable and often criticized, whereas no one really talks about installation size, except maybe to remark on it when it's unexpectedly small— for example, FromSoftware's Sekiro, which clocks in at just under 13GB. This is one of the hopes for the new generation of consoles with fast random-access storage, that much of this duplication can be eliminated, see: https://twitter.com/laurakbuzz/status/1240312373719769089 https://twitter.com/laurakbuzz/status/1240312373719769089
- userbinator 6y ago
  I suspect they're not using techniques like procedural generation, which can pack a lot of highly detailed graphics into a tiny space. It's the difference between a vector and raster image.
  - asutekku 6y ago
    You do not use realtime procedural textures in AAA games. The resolution for those needs to be quite high (2048px or 4096px) and compiling the shaders into that resolution takes ages. They however do use procedural textures when texturing objects (Check Substance Designer), but having to compile them during playtime would make load times unacceptably high. Maybe even hours.
- capableweb 6y ago
  If Call of Duty is anything like any other AAA game, it's not because of the number of unique objects and textures, but the size is on purpose. Lots of video games are optimized by _duplicating_ the assets to where they are needed to be loaded, so since they are all in sequence in storage, it'll be faster to load. But this increases the storage requirements, as lots of assets ends up being duplicated all over the place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
mhh__ 6y ago
The amazing thing to me is that it doesn't even look that good. You download the game (~150GB), then the game sits there downloading and compiling shaders for ages. It's a shame because some aspects of it are actually quite good (although they need to make a competitive mode with no COD-bullshit) I think the developers have admitted the problem, so hopefully things will improve.
- asutekku 6y ago
  Are you sure you’re not playing on low settings, because it looks pretty damn good considering the scale of the game (Warzone)
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I have it maxed out. It doesn't look bad but it doesn't look like it's worth the space on my disk.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  game fidelty is often more about artistic choices than technical stats like texture resolution polygon count, and shader complexity. Especially today, when polygon counts and texture resolution are so high. Squeezing 10% more polygons in when you already had enough doesn't matter. But if you go for some stylistic choice that people just don't like, then it might be perceived as looking bad. Like in the latest Warzone game, the weird blur they do when you start driving around, to me that is un-watchable. It makes everything look like miniatures to me. But I suppose some people like it. While pubg is very very simple by comparison but I like it fine.

by josu 6y ago

rdlfo 6y ago

Given the amount of unique objects and texture maps in the game, this is not a surprise, specially thinking that graphics are the biggest selling points of today's consoles.

gameswithgo 6y ago
sometimes even non unique objects are duped for sake of fast loading times too.
- Pulcinella 6y ago
  I’ve heard it’s literally this. Every asset is duplicated for every map or level it appears in to speed up load times and to make it easier for development teams to work independently on different maps without stepping on each others toes. Also the assets aren’t compressed for faster load times, especially on console. Don’t know how true it is.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    for large "open world" games, you sometimes dupe things to lay out the data in memory to be near each other when the items are near each other in the world, so you can stream data in or chunk it in efficiently. If a player drives toward a city you have to be able to load all the buildings and mailboxes in without any pause. it isn't easy
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    It's pretty much a straight trade of load times vs storage— didn't matter back when games were streamed from disk, but it sucks now that they're installed. It's just that load times are measurable and often criticized, whereas no one really talks about installation size, except maybe to remark on it when it's unexpectedly small— for example, FromSoftware's Sekiro, which clocks in at just under 13GB. This is one of the hopes for the new generation of consoles with fast random-access storage, that much of this duplication can be eliminated, see: https://twitter.com/laurakbuzz/status/1240312373719769089 https://twitter.com/laurakbuzz/status/1240312373719769089
userbinator 6y ago
I suspect they're not using techniques like procedural generation, which can pack a lot of highly detailed graphics into a tiny space. It's the difference between a vector and raster image.
- asutekku 6y ago
  You do not use realtime procedural textures in AAA games. The resolution for those needs to be quite high (2048px or 4096px) and compiling the shaders into that resolution takes ages. They however do use procedural textures when texturing objects (Check Substance Designer), but having to compile them during playtime would make load times unacceptably high. Maybe even hours.
capableweb 6y ago
If Call of Duty is anything like any other AAA game, it's not because of the number of unique objects and textures, but the size is on purpose. Lots of video games are optimized by _duplicating_ the assets to where they are needed to be loaded, so since they are all in sequence in storage, it'll be faster to load. But this increases the storage requirements, as lots of assets ends up being duplicated all over the place.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mhh__ 6y ago

The amazing thing to me is that it doesn't even look that good. You download the game (~150GB), then the game sits there downloading and compiling shaders for ages. It's a shame because some aspects of it are actually quite good (although they need to make a competitive mode with no COD-bullshit) I think the developers have admitted the problem, so hopefully things will improve.

asutekku 6y ago
Are you sure you’re not playing on low settings, because it looks pretty damn good considering the scale of the game (Warzone)
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I have it maxed out. It doesn't look bad but it doesn't look like it's worth the space on my disk.
gameswithgo 6y ago
game fidelty is often more about artistic choices than technical stats like texture resolution polygon count, and shader complexity. Especially today, when polygon counts and texture resolution are so high. Squeezing 10% more polygons in when you already had enough doesn't matter. But if you go for some stylistic choice that people just don't like, then it might be perceived as looking bad. Like in the latest Warzone game, the weird blur they do when you start driving around, to me that is un-watchable. It makes everything look like miniatures to me. But I suppose some people like it. While pubg is very very simple by comparison but I like it fine.