3 ms·

I'm not sure -- the game runs with a good frame rate in nearly all places (IIRC), so it doesn't seem like they needed the power that'd be freed up by better cul

I'm not sure -- the game runs with a good frame rate in nearly all places (IIRC), so it doesn't seem like they needed the power that'd be freed up by better culling. Maybe they just didn't (prematurely?) optimize there and instead spent their time on some of the other little details from this post?

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Exactly. PC games optimize like crazy because every optimization offers the chance to run on lower-end systems and sell a few more copies. Console games have a defined target, and as long as they run well on that target, they're done; optimizations only matter if the game doesn't hit the desired framerate on the one and only target device.
- Narishma 12y ago
  It's the other way around. PC games are rarely optimized to any significant degree because of the vast amount of different configurations out there, and PC gamers will just through hardware at the problem anyway. On a console, you know exactly what configuration all your players have, and any optimizations you do will benefit every one of them.
  - gabriel34 12y ago
    His point still holds: in consoles, any optimization past a certain threshold is wasted effort because your consumer does not get any additional value (the game runs equally as smooth and beautiful with or without the optimization), therefore, doesn't pay more.
    - Narishma 12y ago
      It's only wasted in the short term. If you optimize so much that you have a lot of unused resources left, you just use them in your next game.
      - glhaynes 12y ago
        You get to make that case to the project lead. :)
thegeomaster 12y ago
I'd say it's a two-edged sword because if they can get more objects in a scene if they cull better, then the artists could've made even better and richer environments. It's all about striking a balance between not spending too much time to optimize in order to give the artists more freedom and giving the artists freedom but not enough time for them to use it.
- greggman 12y ago
  Or it could be by limiting what the artists can do they get better games because by limiting what the artists can do the team can spend more time and resources on other places. I've always personally felt many of Nintendo's games specifically limit the art in the service of gameplay where as many other companies are "art first" companies. Zelda in particular aims at making worlds free of clutter and trying to make nearly everything interactive. Compared to most games where 99% of all doors are not openable, 99% of all plants are not manipulable, 99% of all rocks, pots, etc are not movable. If you let the artists fill up the world you get Uncharted, which while it might be a great game in it's own way, it's also massively static compared to nearly any Zelda game. If they let the artists fill up Zelda to be as art drivin as Uncharted it would no longer feel like Zelda because Zelda is about gameplay, Uncharted is about art.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

Exactly. PC games optimize like crazy because every optimization offers the chance to run on lower-end systems and sell a few more copies. Console games have a defined target, and as long as they run well on that target, they're done; optimizations only matter if the game doesn't hit the desired framerate on the one and only target device.

Narishma 12y ago
It's the other way around. PC games are rarely optimized to any significant degree because of the vast amount of different configurations out there, and PC gamers will just through hardware at the problem anyway. On a console, you know exactly what configuration all your players have, and any optimizations you do will benefit every one of them.
- gabriel34 12y ago
  His point still holds: in consoles, any optimization past a certain threshold is wasted effort because your consumer does not get any additional value (the game runs equally as smooth and beautiful with or without the optimization), therefore, doesn't pay more.
  - Narishma 12y ago
    It's only wasted in the short term. If you optimize so much that you have a lot of unused resources left, you just use them in your next game.
    - glhaynes 12y ago
      You get to make that case to the project lead. :)

thegeomaster 12y ago

I'd say it's a two-edged sword because if they can get more objects in a scene if they cull better, then the artists could've made even better and richer environments. It's all about striking a balance between not spending too much time to optimize in order to give the artists more freedom and giving the artists freedom but not enough time for them to use it.

greggman 12y ago
Or it could be by limiting what the artists can do they get better games because by limiting what the artists can do the team can spend more time and resources on other places. I've always personally felt many of Nintendo's games specifically limit the art in the service of gameplay where as many other companies are "art first" companies. Zelda in particular aims at making worlds free of clutter and trying to make nearly everything interactive. Compared to most games where 99% of all doors are not openable, 99% of all plants are not manipulable, 99% of all rocks, pots, etc are not movable. If you let the artists fill up the world you get Uncharted, which while it might be a great game in it's own way, it's also massively static compared to nearly any Zelda game. If they let the artists fill up Zelda to be as art drivin as Uncharted it would no longer feel like Zelda because Zelda is about gameplay, Uncharted is about art.