There's no necessity to optimize because no one plays more than a handful of games in the live service era. And now these live service games contain thousands of skins and models that bloat up the file size. No one cares that games are bloated, plus it's profitable to bloat your game with skins so people gamble.

>>978509 >309 GB What the actual fuck? PS4s can't even download this, and my shitty internet would require two weeks to download it anyways. There's no way that thing, on launch, will have ANY justification for that much bloat, not without copying and carrying over all the skins and models and maps AND actual game code from the past two games as well. Actually, screw it, there's nothing mechanically complex in there compared to the past decade of COD that would justify it at all, it's all graphics. Graphics can't be, SHOULDN'T be, that expensive on storage space for a fucking VIDYA GAME, convert gigs to pounds and this is almost as fat and lazy as the average americunt. >Is this a problem Yes, whatever the fuck it is kill it, burn it, murder it, never let there be another mistake like this again. >>978512 >thousands Again, on LAUNCH? I just did research cause of this and only two games I saw somehow get beyond that size, and it took YEARS to reach that state with either hundreds of DLC or multiple expansions Train Simulator at 350 GB and Ark Survival Evolved at 400 GB respectively, both should burn in hell as well.

>>978530 they also probably do this because it makes it harder to pirate and most blank media is too small or expensive to keep up

>>978509 >what happened All the white men were replaced with nonwhites and women, who don't comprehend compression algorithms and think dropping FLAC audio and bitmap images into games is... well, they don't even think about it at all. The very concepts of "storage" or "file sizes" are beyond them.

>>978534 >Implying people wanted to pirate COD Anybody who's dumb enough to want it buys it. I swear it feels like they should've been on eggshells with even the normalfags for a while now, they can't keep getting away with abusing clueless cattle like this forever. Eventually COD will have no widespread cultural relevancy, one of these days surely!

>>978542 MW3 pissed a lot of people off but they'll just come crawling back, they always do. Also 309GBs is fucking insane, I can't think of any other game that comes close. Largest game I've got installed currently is Total Warhammer 3 which is 120GB.

You don't need any other game other than COD installed anyway. >Campaign >Multiplayer >Zombies >Warzone You got the complete gamer package, what's there not to like? What else is there to play?

>>978557 >Rocket League >Guitar Hero >Autism Blocks >IRL Autism Blocks >Fighting Galactus >BLM Exhibitions and Live Concerts You're missing a lot there buddy, luckily there's something else that fills all those needs at once :D My younger brother has hyper autism for half of those things above and downloaded it on my console despite telling him a hundred times not to

>>978563 >second spoiler Sounds like he needs a beating. If you've already beaten him it sounds like you didn't beat him hard enough. Reminder that the obvious conversation pattern is >savage beating >do you know what you did >do you know what you did wrong >are you going to do it again >tell him to clean himself up and add in savage beatings as necessary every time you get a bad answer.

>>978574 >Sounds like he needs a beating Well parents can't stop me anymore hahaha. ;_;

>>978563 That art style is fucking hideous.

>>978509 >over 300 GB at launch <meaning this number will rapidly inflate after launch I refuse to believe it has gotten this bad. >seeing fags saying the actual game size is smaller but it defaults to trying to get you to install other CoD games with it Fucking retarded.

>>978592 >defaults to trying to get you to install other CoD games with it THANK GOD, still sucks.

>>978557 Cod has campaigns still? I thought they were doing away with those in favor of going full online multiplayer. I haven't touched Cod since the DS so I dunno what's going on.

>>978509 RAM became cheap, and developers cheaper. The PS3 had 256 MB of RAM, the PS5 has 64 times that. And 16 GB of RAM is at the point of being reasonably unlimited for a single running program. The games that need more RAM are niche spreadsheet simulators. UNLESS, you are outsourcing fucking everything and using whatever middleware you can find, and fill your game full of unoptimized, memory-hungry middleware written by pajeets to make a quick buck. And then, there's art. Super-ultra high-def art has become a rage these days. Let's take something old: Ocarina of Time. Ocarina of Time is 32 MB: that's code and assets. Now, there's an texture pack for it called "Ocarina of Time Reloaded" that is 3.5GB (for the small version) of unoptimized, uncompressed images. Those assets are larger than the full ISO of Twilight Princess. There is no modern impetus to optimize things, because memory has become effectively free, and you only really notice the performance issues when your being retarded (and all developers aim to be just slightly better than retarded).

>>978509 >The latest CoD slop to come out will be 306 gigabytes in size on launch. Just for comparison's sake, I have a backup of my vidya on an external hard drive, and here's how many games it took to reach this amount of space: <12 3DO games <51 FDS games <255 Nintendo 3DS games, DLC, and updates <454 Nintendo DS(i) games <26 PC-Engine CD games <94 PS Vita games, DLC, and updates <85 Wiiware games, DLC, and updates <54 Wii U games, DLC, and updates OR... <46 PS1 games <54 PS2 games <35 Sega Saturn games <The ENTIRE No-Intro collection currently available on WayBack consisting of 191 entire system libraries Even the well over 100 PS3 games I have don't take up this much space.

>>978509 >The latest CoD slop to come out will be 306 gigabytes in size on launch. Even if I don't like it I can understand how GRAFIX showpieces like CP2077 or RDR2 can hit the sizes they do and even tolerate them for that reason but what in god's name could possibly bloat CoD to that size?

>>978509 Laziness and cash crab, same thing with newer indie games imitating old graphics.

>>978509 probably just textures you got >diffuse map >normal map >specular map >glossiness map >ambient occlusion map one for each body part per character >head >upper body >lower body >hands >trinkets >teeth with multiple skins per character plus the environment textures with each texture a minimum of 1024x1024 32bit color (CoD 3 was about 512x512 minimum) even stored compressed itt adds up bit of a comepetency crisis because you could get away with a lower resolution for many of these the other major space hog is probably the sounds (weapon sounds, environment sounds, speech etc - probably for all languages)

>>978673 I recall people finding Buttholefilled 4 had uncompressed sound effects copied in every language or something.

https://www.dualshockers.com/cod-black-ops-6-wont-take-up-300gb/ Looks like the 300GB file size limit includes all of current COD, meaning MW2 and MW3 and Warzone and everything else. The actual filesize for just BLOPS6 will be much lower depending on whether you have other modes like zombies installed.

Couldn't have happened if the game was optimised to play on a ps2 or pentium 4 pc.

>>978703 Nothing's changed since the Gamecube anyway, no excuse it can't fit on a tiny DVD

>>978715 Mini DVDs fucking sucked, their low low storage meant even PS2 multiplatform games had better visuals than the Gamecube because the PS2 could actually fit higher quality and higher resolution textures in.

>>978720 hold on son, wasn't RE4 praised for having better graphics on the GC? not to mention the DC had amazing texture resolution despite using cd if anything it was a developer thing, even if storage affected their choices

>>978725 The GC version of RE4 also came on two discs, and the PS2 version was a port and not built for the native hardware. Better specs doesn't really matter unless you have a convenient means of storage. Just because you can cram something into a smaller storage, doesn't mean you should.

How many voiced languages does it support? I would not be surprised if it always had the french/spanish/german/italian/whatever voices DLed and a separate version of every cutscene with a voice track (even though multiple audio tracks for one video have been supported for decades)

>>978735 >Better specs doesn't really matter unless you have a convenient means of storage. The problem with that argument is what defines something as a "convenient means of storage". For example, the original Jak & Daxter is small enough to fit on a mini-DVD (The format the GC used), meanwhile KoF 2002 Tougeki requires a dual-layer DVD (Like the kind used for GT4)? Also what about how you had FF13 in 2007 on the PS3 being so large that it required a dual-layer Blu-Ray disc, but later PS3 games like 2013's Grid 2 looks just as beautiful and can fit on a standard DVD, or the Xenoblade JRPG series each being twice as long as FF13 yet never exceeding 20 GB in size.

>>978743 It always annoyed me when I heard how much space was wasted on languages I have no intention of ever using. With all these digital games, you would think they would build games to be more modular with what you actually want/need to install.

>>978751 I think part of the reason is to standardize releases globally so they only release one and cut down in having region specific copies (Except where needed). I noticed this with many of my Japanese PS3 games. Where titles like Vanquish, Ridge Racer 7, and DoA5 all loaded with the English interface and translation on my American PS3 despite being the Japanese version that was produced for Japan. This isn't true for all titles (Quantum Theory, ZotE HD, FF13, End of Eternity), but it's often enough that it becomes noticeable.

>>978715 >GC tard I don't like many modern games but you're still fucking retarded.

>>978756 Why do you keep posting that image when all it does is re-enforce the points being made? That we have all those wonderfully power technology at our disposal, yet video games are more sterile and primitive than when 'Doom hit the scene.

>>978757 >more sterile and primitive Yes, every game that's been released since the GameCube is no more complex or polished than RE4. Give me a fucking break.

>>978756 At least he uses punctuation.

>>978758 >every game And that's a strawman of something that's never been said.

>>978760 >>978757 >video games are more sterile and primitive than when 'Doom hit the scene What were you trying to say by using these words?

>>978758 I'm someone who is very unhappy, with modern gaming and even I find his dribble insufferable. >>978759 How much flavour, does his STD infested cock taste like?

>>978530 >Again, on LAUNCH? Yes? CoD is a live service game that operates entirely around micro transactions now. Why wouldn't it be bloated thousands of skins on launch?

>>978762 Why is it something like nuTomb Raider has less gameplay and reactivity to input than your average Sega CD FMV title? Why is it REm4ke has less content and features than even launch RE4 on the GC? Why is it Ubisoft is trying to treat the latest The Crew released last year as an "improvement" when it's doing the same exact thing as Test Drive Unlimited on the PSP? Why are developers still "struggling" to make games "look better", yet the games still look nowhere near as good as 2007's Crysis? Why are developed struggling with lighting and game AI and releasing a product that is still inferior to F.E.A.R.? Why do modern open-world games lack the scope of True Crime:SoLA and the interactivity of Shenmue? Why is it Starfield struggles with ground-space battles yet that was the main feature of Battlefront: Elite Squadron on the PSP? Why is it that the "best" games being released by companies these days are games that are remakes/ports/collections of games that I can already play on any one of the 10 game consoles that I already own, with the newest being released as recently as 12 years ago?

>>978725 It had higher polygon count and higher res and framerste but the textures were worse than the PS2 version.

>>978768 Because those are shit games. That still doesn't make the opposite true.

>>978773 >That still doesn't make the opposite true. What "opposite"?

>>978774 The alternative, I mean. I'm losing my fucking mind over here. Just because AAA studios make shit sequels and remakes doesn't necessarily mean that that only older games are worth playing or that no new games are worth playing. I don't agree with a lot of what you're claiming in that post but it'll have to wait until I get home from work to actually break it down. Why don't you compare the original DOOM to its modern counterparts, regardless of their writing or casualization? Why not compare King's Field and Shadow Tower to Elden Ring? I don't like the modern gaming industry at all but there are still good games being made that are worth playing, and they couldn't have been made on the god-damned GameCube.

>>978793 Elden meme on GC would've been impossible.

Switched devices, same Anon, just a different ID. >>978793 >The alternative, I mean. What "alternative"? > Just because AAA studios make shit sequels and remakes doesn't necessarily mean that that only older games are worth playing I'm sorry, what? > Why don't you compare the original DOOM to its modern counterparts, regardless of their writing or casualization? The only Doom games I can personally compare on a gameplay basis is the original and Doom 3 as I have actually played them, and they are completely separate games to the point that they might as well be different series. The original Doom can be best described as a horror-themed twin-stick shooter from the first-person perspective with level design oddly similar to Zelda and other dungeon crawlers. By contrast, Doom 3 is more along the lines of your standard horror game (Which is an offshoot of the "Adventure" genre itself) played from the first-person perspective with free aim and movement. In some ways, Human Head's Prey was a better successor to Doom and Doom 3 (And have heard similar sentiments regarding Quake 4). As far as unDoom, I have heard other Anons describing it as a "First-person character action" game, with Doomsiders only furthering that regard. And based on that assessment, and my playthrough of the earlier first-person character action" game Red Steel 2 (On the Wii), nuDoom goes to the opposite end of "Missing the point" of the gameplay in the original Doom. > Why not compare King's Field and Shadow Tower to Elden Ring? Only From game I have played is Lost Kingdoms.

>>978793 >and they couldn't have been made on the god-damned GameCube Also it's worth point ming out that you, and ONLY you, made that stipulation. I actually consider that almost every game could be possible on the PSP or even the Dreamcast. But that doesn't have the same ring to it as criticizing someone defending the "LameCube", because people actually like those systems.

>>978802 I asked what you meant in your other post (>>978762) and you replied by saying a bunch of new games and remakes are bad and lack innovation, and that older games are better and you'd rather play them (>>978768). Is the point you're trying to make not that modern games fail at innovating and bringing something new to the table by taking advantage of modern technology? To reiterate, you are agreeing that modern console and computer technology is unnecessary and hasn't helped games in terms of complexity or depth (>>978757). I agree that modern games in general are less innovative and creative than in the past, but to claim that they don't utilize modern technology to their benefit is outright false. >Human Head's Prey was a better successor to Doom and Doom 3 And would Human Head's Prey have been possible without the things mentioned in >>978756?

>>978804 You are retarded.

>>978768 it's simple: >there are small games - indie low budget but high creativity - niche stuff >big games - AAA ultra high budget playing it safe - normie goyslop >for mid ground you have a chance to have best of both worlds but they are not financially feasible right now: there is a recession but many people refuse to admit it people who normally team up for mid ground stuff are either trying to make it on their own as indies or belong to one of the AAA sweatshops working on a single characters hair shading and whatnot and things are so bad even AAA is trying to cut corners: Sony trying to bring games to PC or EA trying to add sponsored adds

>GC fag is being dishonest yet again He should marked as a spammer at this point.

>>978808 >Is the point you're trying to make not that modern games fail at innovating and bringing something new to the table by taking advantage of modern technology? No. > but to claim that they don't utilize modern technology to their benefit is outright false. How so? The only "benefit" people can point to is frame rate and resolution increases, but 1080p 60fps was possible on since the PS3 launched in 2006. So what is all that damn technology being wasted on? > And would Human Head's Prey have been possible without the things mentioned in >>978756? It launched in 2006 on the 360 (With working prototypes from as far back as the N64), so none of it.

>>978824 >No. Then I have no idea what the fuck you were trying to say earlier, or what your argument is. >So what is all that damn technology being wasted on? If you are the same person (or think the same as him) you're going to say graphical fidelity, engine power, physics simulation, geometrical complexity and density of world details are all a "waste" and don't matter when it comes to videogames. In that case, I have no idea what the fuck you think technology can achieve that would please you. >It launched in 2006 on the 360 (With working prototypes from as far back as the N64), so none of it. Would you like to provide a source for this that isn't your ass? You don't think if that game was released on the N64 it'd be vastly different from its actual release incarnation? Who am I kidding, this is also a topic that's come up in a past thread and got barreled over with ridiculous rationalization. You just said you "actually consider that almost every game could be possible on the PSP or even the Dreamcast."

>>978847 >Then I have no idea what the fuck you were trying to say earlier, or what your argument is. How about you ask what I want developers to do? >graphical fidelity, engine power, physics simulation, geometrical complexity and density of world details Yet they cannot they cannot make a game that plays at 1080p 60fps on the latest hardware, with the engines are so bugged that rendering a fucking shadow almost crashes the system, that is if the game's physics engine doesn't do it first, for the purposes of rendering a 40,000 polygon cube, in the middle of a fucking desert that's 10 square miles. > Would you like to provide a source for this that isn't your ass? The system specs of the Xbox 360? > You don't think if that game was released on the N64 it'd be vastly different from its actual release incarnation Probably would have been closer to something like Turok rather than the Area-51 game on the PS2.

>>978874 >How about you ask what I want developers to do? Okay, what do you want developers to do? >Yet they cannot they cannot make a game that plays at 1080p 60fps on the latest hardware, with the engines are so bugged that rendering a fucking shadow almost crashes the system Yes, optimization sucks for many modern releases. I never said that wasn't a trend. >for the purposes of rendering a 40,000 polygon cube, in the middle of a fucking desert that's 10 square miles. I don't remember playing that game. I know you're being sarcastic but that's quite a bit of hyperbole on your part. >The system specs of the Xbox 360? I meant the "working N64 prototype," but sure, you can be a smart-ass instead. >Probably would have been closer to something like Turok rather than the Area-51 game on the PS2. And why do you say that? Are you saying earlier consoles would limit what could feasibly be accomplished in a game, and define how they play and look? It's almost like that's exactly why new hardware and software is developed or something. But because none of the things that have actually changed matter to you those developments are worthless in your eyes, which is fine. But you're insinuating that they are objectively worthless, which is fucking retarded.

>The GC fucking animal is here >AGAIN STOP FUCKING REPLYING TO HIM YOU ABSOLUTE MONGRELS, EVERY FUCKING THREAD IS THE SAME FUCKING SHIT, HOLY FUCK FUCKING MUTT CUNTS, EVERY FUCKING TIME THAT STUPID ANIMAL APPEARS, YOU NEED TO ABSOLUTELY RESPOND HIM EVERY FUCKING TIME DESPITE BEING PROVED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE STUPID DENSE FUCKING CUNT OF THAT IMBECILE IS AS OBSTUSE AS A FUCKING GORILLA FUCKING FAT JEW FOR LETTING THIS SHIT SLIP AGAIN AND AGAIN, FUCK

>>978901 >what do you want developers to do? Go back to making games for the 360/PS3/Wii U/Vita again. Anything beyond that I see as a bonus. >optimization sucks for many modern releases Optimization is not even attempted. > I don't remember playing that game. Starfield LITERALLY used 40,000 polygons to render a single cube, and it's "planets" are overwhelmingly 10 square miles of empty desert. > I meant the "working N64 prototype," This is the only thing I can find: https://archive.org/details/prey-1195/ > Are you saying earlier consoles would limit what could feasibly be accomplished in a game, and define how they play and look? No, general game design philosophies were different back in the 1990's. At that time, everyone was focussed on making action-based Doom clones because that was what was selling. Then Half-Life came out, and developers became more confident in making narrative based shooters. Much of the modern industry was already taking shape on the PS1.

>>978903 No, I am personally not a cuck, and so not afraid to have a fucking conversation. Anon you got no balls. Be ashamed.

>>978903 Better to have some kind of a conversation than nothing. Even if it's frustrating you can learn something from it. You know other people are probably reading the thread too, right? >>978904 >Go back to making games for the 360/PS3/Wii U/Vita again. Ok. They're not going to do that. >Starfield LITERALLY used 40,000 polygons to render a single cube, and it's "planets" are overwhelmingly 10 square miles of empty desert. Yeah, that game was terribly optimized (and terrible in general). There was more to the game itself than just a massive empty desert though. It's a terrible game, and a terrible use of open world design. >This is the only thing I can find: >https://archive.org/details/prey-1195/ Okay, neat. There's still no way in hell that would have been anywhere close to the same experience as the final Prey, even if it did have fully detailed models and rooms for the N64. >No, general game design philosophies were different back in the 1990's. I... Don't know how that changes what I was suggesting. If anything, game design philosophy in the 90's was even more focused on technical advancement since the leap between processing power of consoles or complexity of releases was even greater than it is today. >Then Half-Life came out, and developers became more confident in making narrative based shooters. Much of the modern industry was already taking shape on the PS1. Right, and if devs were relegated to the same tech they had 10-20 years ago, they'd probably still move in that direction, but within the limits of the 360 era. You don't think if everything stopped at that point both developers and players would get fed up with the limitations they had to contend with?

>>978915 >They're not going to do that. Okay, but I won't be buying their games until they do. >There's still no way in hell that would have been anywhere close to the same experience as the final Prey You can also attribute that to restarting development half a dozen times, because that was 3D Realms we're talking about, before they finally hired Human Head to finish what they started. >If anything, game design philosophy in the 90's was even more focused on technical advancement since the leap between processing power of consoles or complexity of releases was even greater than it is today. Yet you had a much wider range of games available. Take the FPS as an example. Players finally got a proper version of Doom, but then you also had Jumping Flash adding platforming, Forsaken with it's "six degrees of freedom" movement (**At 60 FPS on the PS1), Magic Carpet with it's large expansive world and real-time Terra-forming, Medal of Honor with it's (At the time) "realistic" WWII gameplay, Rainbow Six with it's squad-based gameplay, and Alien: Resurrection with it's full 3D survival horror gameplay. And that was just on the PS1. When you look at some of the FPS games on the Saturn, Robotica was a "rogue-like" FPS, Enemy Zero made sound a very important aspect of it's gameplay, and Baroque had resource management. Then Maken X later on the Dreamcast is the "earliest" example of a "first-person character action game". >You don't think if everything stopped at that point both developers and players would get fed up with the limitations they had to contend with? Not when people having to go BACK to games from 10/20/30/40 years ago in order to "wash out" the bad taste they have in their mouth from modern games. And actually excavating into those eras of gaming have only made people ask "what happened" when they keep finding that games were a lot more experimental and expressive than the content that came later.

>>978915 >>978903 can someone fill me in what are you people are even arguing about? its seems something about modern games are not being optimised - but that is kind of a fact so whats all the hubbub?

>>978974 Its the same autist who keeps repeating his points in multiple threads for months (hell, maybe even years at this point) with the same posting style, baiting different people into arguments with him. He always has the same posting style with extremely autistic formatting and the same talking points he brings up every time. I think he lacks people to talk with, so he's overcompensating by spewing his opinions everywhere across the board. He's even been spotted on other webring boards now. I don't really care about his arguments either way, he can have good points or bad, its just tedious to see him constantly and recognize him as an unfortunate fixture of the board. One of his usual points is that gaming technology never needed anything more powerful than a PSP or something like that.

>>978974 >can someone fill me in what are you people are even arguing about? Months ago, I made the assertion that modern games have zero reason for demanding the resources that they do, and I made this point by pulling up different features and game mechanics that have existed in video games from 2007 and going all the way back to the mid-90's. In response, a couple of posters went completely apoplectic because, according to them, it was "impossible" for video games to have such features and mechanics before the advent of "modern gaming" over the past decade. That leads to this image that they insist on continuously posting that "shows" just how much technology has progressed in the past 20 years alone as an "own" against an argument that was never being made: >>978756 Numerous people, included myself, have agreed on the point that technology has progressed on several fronts, but consistently point out that the issue they're ignoring is that all these advancements in game design were possible before much of that technology existed. And keep coming back to pointing out that none of the games being released on today's systems, including games on the Nintendo Switch, have any excuse for lacking the content that they due and having the performance issues that they do when much earlier games on much earlier systems had a far larger amount of content for the player with much better performance. These points are then immediately turned into the strawman that you see here: >>978715 Where originally they made the strawman that my argument (And those of other Anons) are, "LOL, all games should run on the PS2". However someone else then made another thread discussing the topic, using the GC as his example, and then these guys latched onto calling ANYONE making these or similar points as being their "GC tard" (Originally just "retard) boogieman. To put it simply, people losing their minds that Anons remember that gaming existed before CY.

>>978903 >censor conversation because I don't want to read it reeee

>>978509 From what I've seen, this is the largest video game of all time by almost 3x. Is that correct? ARK doesn't count because that's texture duplication.

>>978990 Anon. You know that's not the full story. People cited game after game that couldn't be downscaled to run on older hardware, either because it would have to be reworked from the ground up or would have to lose its artstyle in the compromise, and you just kept "nuh-uh" and "doesn't count lmao"ing your way past every single one like a petulant child on the playground losing at a game of tag. Even when people posted EXPLICIT EXAMPLES of games not being able to run on old tech due to things like fine physics simulations or other problems you would throw out excuse after excuse as to why those games didn't count. That's what makes you a damn clown, this ignorance of active examples that disproved your point and of games that just couldn't exist back then, much less actual hardware advancements and gameplay elements and decisions tied to those.

>>979041 >People cited game after game that couldn't be downscaled to run on older hardware Such as? >or would have to lose its artstyle in the compromise You do realize that games USED TO have unique art styles BECAUSE of system limitations, right? Okami is the biggest example of this as Clover Studio originally planned on the game having a realistic look.

>>979042 OKAMI WAS OUTSIDE OF YOUR TIMELINE YOU NIGGERFAGGOT! IT CAME OUT AFTER THE DATE YOU SPECIFIED IN THE THREAD!

>>979047 What "timeline"?

>>979048 "anything past 2004 is unnecessary". Something you said along those lines in the thread, citing 2004 as a cutoff point. Okami falls outside that as the engine and innovations required to achieve it fall outside of that time period. Even if the console doesn't, Okami doesn't exist with the tech of 2004. Tech isn't just hardware used on the consumer end either, it's the hardware used on the development end that lets one even accomplish big projects like this. Something your retarded, nostalgia-obsessed mind can't process.

>>978981 >>978990 this is interesting but why this is such a hot topic? it's true that raw gameplay can get away with a lot weaker hardware and it's also true that some games rely on artwork that old hardware would have trouble with I really don't see if there is anything more to it or are you guys trying to pinpoint the exact hardware specs where innovation has seemingly stopped? or how much of a demake would still count as the original game?

>>979001 >From what I've seen, this is the largest video game of all time by almost 3x. Maybe? Until someone digs into the files an apples-to-apples comparison is going to be pretty hard to make because there's no way of knowing how much useless shit and bloat is in there. My current install of CP2077 is 87GB but there's about 60GB worth of dialogue in different languages that I didn't bother downloading, much less installing. If you're doing an open class of comparison then you're also putting it up against sim and sim-adjacent games and those can get absolutely enormous because their entire business model is based around adding and selling unique assets. My guess for the size is that they basically just made a bunch of what are effectively discrete games (the latest Warzone implementation, zombies, campaign, multiplayer, etc.) and then slapped them together into one package. >>978990 >And keep coming back to pointing out that none of the games being released on today's systems, including games on the Nintendo Switch, have any excuse for lacking the content that they due and having the performance issues that they do when much earlier games on much earlier systems had a far larger amount of content for the player with much better performance. I don't know much it counts as an "excuse", but dealing with the dogshit specs of consoles has certainly played a role in some regards. Look at Crysis as an example; in the first game (which wasn't developed for consoles) the power of PCs was leveraged not just for GRAFIX but things like physics simulations for destructible environments and nice big open maps. In the sequels, which were developed for consoles, this implementation was severely hamstrung because consoles would have shit themselves to death trying to deal with someone doing something silly or large maps. Even the Just Cause games, which were developed for consoles and which are ostensibly physics sandboxes sacrificed a huge amount of everything else to make that work and they still chug on consoles. In CY+10, consoles are basically specialized potatoes and the developers choose GRAFIX over interactivity because they can't have both.

>>979050 >Something you said along those lines in the thread Except I never said that. I remember someone was trying to assert some year as a "cutoff", but he kept getting angry when people consistently referred to what systems were capable of during their that console's lifetimes (And even after in a few instances). >Okami doesn't exist with the tech of 2004. That is true, Okami exists with the tech of 1999/2000. The "tech" of 2004 would be something like the PSP and NDS, with the sequel (Okamiden) coming out on the latter system. >Tech isn't just hardware used on the consumer end either, it's the hardware used on the development end that lets one even accomplish big projects like this. So like I said, they were using the tech of 1999/2000 to make Okami. >>979052 >but why this is such a hot topic? I honestly don't know. Perhaps some people are so tied up with the modern industry that don't want admit that much of modern gaming is a lie, so they have to shout down anyone who disagrees. >or are you guys trying to pinpoint the exact hardware specs where innovation has seemingly stopped? I tend to place that with the Dreamcast being the last "true" gaming console, but then there's things like Gravity Daze. Like I said, the problem I generally have is that the games coming out lack the content and polish of prior games (Even with graphics now taking a hit with the "Uncanny value" effect). And it seems like game companies have even agreed that gaming has hit a wall as they proceed to remake/port almost every games from the seventh gen and prior. So I reached the conclusion of asking what's stopping developers from just restarting development on seventh gen systems if they're just going to be making the same games for systems I already own. >>979053 >but dealing with the dogshit specs of consoles Except the Switch is even MORE powerful than the Wii U, which is far more powerful than the Xbox 360 (Which was released in 2005). And that brings us a back to: >>978824 <So what is all that damn technology being wasted on? We're not seeing anything with these games that should be causing all these performance problems as they're not doing anything new. Even the big new "feature" of TotK was done by a random Slav developer using slapped-together PCs running on vodka. So what is Nintendo's excuse for why they cannot program for shit? >Look at Crysis as an example Let's actually look at Crysis. Here are the recommended (Not Minimum) specs for that game: <Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz <2 GB RAM <512 MB 650 MHz GPU Then let's look at the specs for the Switch: <Four ARM Cortex A57 cores (theoretical max 2GHz) <4 GB RAM <4 GB 768 MHz GPU So, the Switch is capable of playing Crysis at it's recommended specs. Why can they not make the games look just as good as Crysis? >Even the Just Cause games, which were developed for consoles and which are ostensibly physics sandboxes sacrificed a huge amount of everything else to make that work and they still chug on consoles. But it was possible. And those games, along with Mercenaries and RF: Guerilla and Black and Flatout 2, still have far more complex physics engines than modern games. So where is the excuse? They did it in the past, games looked better in the past, games had more content in the past, games were smaller in the past. There is absolutely zero reason for gaming to be in the condition that it is in.

>>979072 >Perhaps some people are so tied up with the modern industry that don't want admit that much of modern gaming is a lie, so they have to shout down anyone who disagrees. No, it's because you use moon logic and close your eyes to any point that contradicts it. Cherrypicking examples where developers did the best with what they had, making a feature work under a specific set of constraints, and then expecting that feature to magically work when those constraints aren't there. Then you expect those features to magically appear everywhere because skilled development is free and feature X will print money somehow. >Here are the recommended (Not Minimum) specs for that game Crysis still chugged on the "recommended" specs. Once again, talking out your ass.

>>979110 >developers did the best with what they had, making a feature work under a specific set of constraints, and then expecting that feature to magically work when those constraints aren't there I fail to see the problem of expecting developers to include, if not expand upon, content that was in previous games. Especially if it's from the same series/developer.

>>979119 >same developer <posts game from a different developer ass goes thpbthhhht

>>979052 My personal frustration with him is that he doesn't accept that newer games can be good and claims things like "everything should be able to run on a 20 year old console" or "because I have old consoles developers should keep making games for them," completely denying the technical impossibilities of that claim and short-sightedness of that belief. I like arguing because it helps both sides get a better understanding of their own beliefs but it's incredibly frustrating to argue with him because I agree with him on many points but he dismisses other points that get made, changes subject, shifts the goalposts, makes false equivalences, and makes outrageous claims nonstop.

>>979153 >he doesn't accept that newer games can be good No, I do. >and claims things like "everything should be able to run on a 20 year old console" Because I haven't seen any thing in newer games that prevent them from being playable on a PSP (Or even a 360, if you excuse it being 19 years old). >completely denying the technical impossibilities Such as fucking what? What are these games doing that is "impossible" for previous systems? I keep asking this and you never actually list anything.

>>979155 >No, I do. Then shut the fuck up because nobody's going to redesign a modern game and simplify it enough to the point where you can play it on the Dreamcast. That's not a reality, that's a fantasy. Everybody prefers the gaming industry of the past but to pretend like that not only is coming back but that developers are going to limit themselves to it is outright braindead retarded and your inability to accept that fact and move on is exasperating. >Because I haven't seen any thing in newer games that prevent them from being playable on a PSP (Or even a 360, if you excuse it being 19 years old). Because you deny that technical improvements exist and contribute to what make a game or that anything that isn't a groundbreaking revelation to the field of game theory itself is still something that can't be done on past hardware. >Such as fucking what? What are these games doing that is "impossible" for previous systems? I keep asking this and you never actually list anything. Except I have, but in previous threads you've denied that a larger game world is worth mentioning because old games could have open worlds, that more detailed games are worth mentioning because older games had details too, or that combining already existing gameplay elements (which sounds like something you would want) doesn't matter because each of those things have already individually been done on past hardware.

>>979159 >nobody's going to redesign a modern game and simplify it enough to the point where you can play it on the Dreamcast Why not? >Everybody prefers the gaming industry of the past but to pretend like that not only is coming back but that developers are going to limit themselves to it is outright braindead retarded Why? You just admitted that everyone hates this current industry and wants to return to how it used to be. So what's wrong with desiring that people do exactly that? >you deny that technical improvements exist No, I don't. >or that anything that isn't a groundbreaking revelation to the field of game theory itself is still something that can't be done on past hardware To some extent yes because why try to set CPUs in fire doing some "new" technique when older methods worked just as well (If not better) with a far smaller impact on game performance? >you've denied that a larger game world is worth mentioning because old games could have open worlds And you're going to leave out the context of just how big we've made open worlds in the past? Such as the Daggerfall being the size of England? Or the full 3D open-world in Fuel being the size of Connecticut? Also what about people actually getting tired of EVERY game now being some flavor of "open-world" due to how they lack the structure, design, and flow of linear games? >more detailed games are worth mentioning because older games had details too Graphical detail or interactive detail? Shenmue still hasn't been beat regarding the interactivity the game's world has to offer. Meanwhile vidya graphics have looked fine for the past 17 years. Also are you going to address the fact that we've actually reached the point that they're putting too much detail into games to the point that it all becomes white noise ends up detracting from the experience? >or that combining already existing gameplay elements Such as...? I know there were brief attempts to combine RTS gameplay with action combat, but pic related seem to be the only games that ever really attempted it. Unless you count all the variations of Dynasty Warriors.

>>979155 The "technical impossibilities" that he keeps talking about are the vastly enlarged texture cache and better polygon fill rates of modern hardware. So, yes, most gameplay can be achieved on a PS1 or N64, maybe. When I was talking about glorified spreadsheet simulators: there comes a point where some of the effects that are in modern games require a number of entities that are RAM-limited for a given map. It is possible that there is some gameplay that won't fit into the 2MB or 4MB of those old machines, as you can't expect even a team of experts to have all the good ideas necessary to do it. For example: say I wanted an RTS where I am in command of all 29,000 soldiers who landed on Sword Beach (glorified spreadsheet simulator). I wouldn't expect even the PS3 to handle just that number of entities. I would expect the PS5 to handle the memory requirements with ease, and even display all of them (if I am willing for them to look like PS1 models). Kaze has gotten 60 fps out of Mario 64. How? Years of tweaking. And while he and you will complain that this is tweaking that Nintendo could have paid for, at the end of the day, Nintendo is a business that has to sell games. I know: most modern game companies seem too busy trying to sell games to people who don't play games to ... actually sell games. But (and, God does it make me disgusted to say it), they are selling the idea of being a gamer to people who buy merchandise (but not the games: they watch LPs). And, yes, we are way the hell on the logarithmic side of the logistic curve, and are only seeing very marginal diminishing returns with the bleeding edge of modern graphics. It's still the bleeding edge. It's what people in the industry strive for. There are only a few people who want to see what the NES would be capable of, if it had had a CD-ROM expansion. The people who get the best out of any piece of hardware (for an actual game, and not some demoscene video) are usually working long after the hardware is obsolete, and put in a lot of time because they aren't trying to sell something. And that's all of the problem: you buying new hardware is cheaper for everyone than anyone (but a dedicated fan) making a niche demake for luddites like you. This has turned out to be a crazy, pointless ramble.

>>979169 >Why? You just admitted that everyone hates this current industry and wants to return to how it used to be. So what's wrong with desiring that people do exactly that? There is a difference between culture and technology. Whenever someone says something like "we should go back to how America was in the 19th century" they don't mean getting rid of air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, cars, planes, modern medicine and so on, just the culture and probably the form of government of that period. Conversely when people want to go back to how gaming was in the early 2000s, they just want the culture of that period. What good would be to limit ourselves to PSP tier hardware, if all the games would be filled with micro-transactions, lootboxes, gatchas, DLC up the ass and GAAS. Unless, of course, you want to argue that those consoles had too much of a limited hardware and you couldn't have those types of games on such hardware :^)

>>978509 Gonna guess the thousands of sounds are uncompressed and in higher-fidelity formats too, to cater to the four people who decide to run it with 7.1 surround sound. That will add many giggerbytes

>>978534 >Johnny Mnemonic reference >Nice

>>979072 >>979153 maybe its a generational thing? I personally have trouble playing games after the 2000s for a while I thought I was taking crazy pills because I couldn't aim for shit in the latest UT remake or in Fortnite and had to reinstall the original UT and confirm that I can still aim and indeed the aiming got broken somehow in the unreal engine and I don't understand how is that even possible I think we all seem to agree on that there is a competency crisis in gaming and technological innovations indeed bring less and less gameplay innovations while PS1 to PS2 seemed to be a giant leap the PS4 is in direct competitions with the PS5 because the better hw makes little difference maybe the same will happen for the switch2? there seem to be a human factor as well you indeed could do an insane rts with insane amount of units and it would be cool as hell but instead it evolved into mobas - thing like league where you only command a single unit and its only on a single map and people like me who love rts games are incredibly disappointed by the popularity of this new genre (and tbh even when they were just starcraft mods they seemed lame) and I would argue that for a game like this - league would be absolutely possible on the dreamcast the graphics would get a downgrade but the gameplay and all the shenanigans could be there or maybe the real frustration comes from that we got supercomputer grade hardware today and it feels that all this power is wasted on mediocre things? (and it seems that devs are not even allowed to innovate if you remember what happened with Spore) like there could be many games that are downright impossible to do on hardware in the past there could be ai that learns, dynamic worlds, absolutely realistic physics but all the upgrades seem to be wasted on graphics so in a way the real argument is that its all smoke and mirrors and people are just remaking games from the past? and even though there are improvements their essence didn't change much?

>>979184 Technology influences culture.

>>978715 holy fucking topkek, I posted this throwaway line to have a laff about the GC autist, and I come back to the thread looking like this. You guys are somethin'.

>>979177 >For example: say I wanted an RTS where I am in command of all 29,000 soldiers who landed on Sword Beach (glorified spreadsheet simulator). I wouldn't expect even the PS3 to handle just that number of entities. It seems pretty simple because that's exactly the problem Dynasty Warriors ran into with DW5 I believe, and they solved that by simplifying the AI in DW6 to where it controlls something like 5-10 units at the same time. So while earlier games had AI for each individual unit, the later games switch to the AI being handled as a "squad". >And while he and you will complain that this is tweaking that Nintendo could have paid for, at the end of the day, Nintendo is a business that has to sell games. I'm willing to overlook things like that because technology was limited at the time and a lot of people made things up as they went along just trying to find some way to get things to work, so simple things like the addition of a system add-on (Sega CD) or a new chip (Super FX) was seen as a godsend back then. It should be mentioned that the limitation of tech only re-enforces the points being made because of just what they managed to do with game consoles that were almost literally slapped together using almost bargain-bin hardware contrasted with to the modern consoles being supercomputers designed with the (Almost) latest tech. Compare that to today to where developers are hesitant to make games for the latest and greatest PS5 Pro because they're not even using all the power of the base PS5: https://archive.ph/wNYr6 <Dring also shared what game companies think about the upcoming PS5 Pro, saying that he “didn’t meet a single person that understood the point of it.” The main issue is that devs didn’t seem like they needed the new version of Sony’s hardware, as “they weren’t really making the most of the PS5 in the first place.” >There are only a few people who want to see what the NES would be capable of, if it had had a CD-ROM expansion. The FDS? >>979184 >What good would be to limit ourselves to PSP tier hardware, if all the games would be filled with micro-transactions, lootboxes, gatchas, DLC up the ass and GAAS. Unless, of course, you want to argue that those consoles had too much of a limited hardware and you couldn't have those types of games on such hardware The PSP and even the Dreamcast had DLC and MMOs released on them. That being said, part of it does have to do with the technology as every game console released up to 2012 (And the Switch) can entirely operate without an internet connection. Meanwhile the BloodBorne Machine, the Xbone, the NoGames5, and the SexLessBox cannot. And mobile games are banking on the fact that you're using the device as a cell phone rather than as an iPod Touch. So it isn't that the tech is "limited", it's that players have more controller over older tech than they do newer technology. And you can see companies trying to get around this, to remain in control, with things like the "Cloud" releases of games on the Switch. >>979231 >and indeed the aiming got broken somehow in the unreal engine and I don't understand how is that even possible Mouse acceleration?

>>979245 >Mouse acceleration? the mouse is fine, that has not changed: the bullets seem to be physically not hitting things i'm not sure how to explain best like you can see your gun fire but there is something off with player models and the bullets don't land at first I thought they just had lowered the damage or something along those lines but there is definitely some shenanigans with hit detection somewhere

>>979248 > the bullets seem to be physically not hitting things "Bullet magnetism" or "Hip Bloom"?

>>979169 Why do you keep talking about Daggerfall and Shenmue like they're some pinnacle of innovation? Daggerfall was procedurally generated and after like three dungeons and two cities you've seen everything it offers. Shenmue had NPC schedules and gachapons. Is that like future-level tech to you or something?

>>979284 I think the argument is that the extra detail in shenmue was not just for decoration like how in duke3d and build fps games you can manipulate everything - turn lights, shoot bottles a good contrast would be doom3 vs HL2 where in doom3 you also have a physics engine but cannot pick up anything in HL2 you can use both the gravity gun and your hands one problem is that the better the graphics in a game get the harder it is to add more content simply because they cost more to make because they are more detailed even though the tech could easily handle a lot more and many people would prefer more interactivity to better worse gfx (e.g. minecraft like games) and of course getting around this limit with procedural generation is the go to solution but unless the generation is good its usually absolute bullshit - I think we all feel the same way about it as you but maybe ai will change all of this who knows

>>979284 >Why do you keep talking about Daggerfall and Shenmue like they're some pinnacle of innovation? Because they are in some aspects. The latest and greatest "games" being thrown out there as tech demos that still lack the interactivity of Shenmue in regards to how you engage with the NPCs, the world, etc.. And only games like Fuel have come anywhere close to a map size equivalent to the size of Daggerfall. That being said, I don't believe these games are the one-all-end-all I am unintentionally treating them as. Like I pointed out earlier, people are actually getting tired of game worlds being so damn big and lacking any defined structure, not to mention games having so much detail to the point that your eyes just gloss over it. The problem is what modern developers chasing after is something that already exists and accomplished in a much better fashion decades ago. I'm not even asking for games to be using the latest and greatest tech, or to absolutely be blowing my mind in regards doing something new. I just want good/simple games that don't set my computer on fire, yet that's exactly what's being released these days left and right. So the question immediately becomes asking why do newer games suck so much and are only capable of accomplishing so little despite the technology they are using being the absolute cutting edge? And I've just checked out to the point that, if you cannot even do the absolute BARE FUCKING MINIMUM of making the game compatible with Windows 7, you're a shit developer who's games are shit and I have zero interest in supporting. >>979305 >but maybe ai will change all of this who knows AI is just procedural generation. So what you're really asking for is for procedural generation to "fix" the problems with procedural generation.

>>979329 You think a game as big as England is impressive? Western developers made a game that's as big as the entire universe in 2016! How about that, huh?

>>978756 You can make any sort of retarded statement you want by having it be in question form and thus placing the burden of proof on the other party.

>>979437 >Western developers made a game that's as big as the entire universe in 2016! Okay and? They did the same exact thing in 1993.

>>979329 what I'm asking if procedural generation maybe took a giant leap with ai to the point where you would no longer be able to tell the difference between human made and procedural content? on one hand daggerfall used very basic and primitive methods to generate things and ai is clearly advanced enough to replace a writing team but there seem to be still a pattern that humans notice e.g. you can guess if an artwork was made by ai or human

>>979448 >You're not allowed to ask questions that hurt my feelings because I can't answer them! I don't understand the point of your image.

>>979668 It's a Gish gallop that doesn't even bother to make a case for any of his points.