4 ms·
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 enviro
by 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 agoOr 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.