>AI, draw me some different rocks >Ganker: CRINGE!! SOULLESS!! >AI, randomize the scale and rotation of this rock model >Ganker: BASED!!! GENIUS!!! SOULFUL!!!!!!
Remember that you can scale it across axis independently, not just totally up or down. Need a thin rock? scale down 1 axis a lot. Need a long pointy rock? Scale up 1 axis (a lot), and remember you can do that in 3 different ways and get pretty different looking results. Like another anon said, you can also design your rocks specifically to have differentiating features so that you can use the same rock for different 'styles of rock' to get the shapes you're looking for since most of the time at least half of your rock will be obscured.
Good point, wasn't thinking about that. I think with lower quality older assets you could probably get away with it a bit more than having consistent texel density. Stretched textures were pretty common.
Nowadays you would surely just be able to justify having 5-10 rocks with useful generic features and minimal single-axis scaling.
Don't ever comment on things you don't understand again, you fricking moronic tech illiterate subhuman. Trannies like you love to run their cum glazed mouths on subjects they have literally no comprehension of whatsoever. Fricking stupid troon.
Rocks are generally not looked at with much scrutiny. It's background filler and often overlooked. It's not about the detail, it's about the bigger picture and the atmosphere. Simply changing the orientation and size is usually enough to hide any noticeable repetition. Such a stupid thing to whine over. Granted, I notice things like this because I've been modding since Morrowind and Half-Life, so reusing assets is my middle name. Sometimes the neurotic modder in me will find shit like this, but if anything I'll just be impressed.
>Such a stupid thing to whine over.
Was he whining? I think most people can respect it as long as it looks good and isn't too noticeable without really looking closely
>halo 3 level designer managed to use one rock for an entire level >meanwhile devs now waste millions upon millions of dollars greenlighting rock designs and making an usual amount of rock assets just so you can walk past it without noticing any of it
awesome timeline.,
It's actually much worse than that, they don't "design" the rocks they take 8K tridimensional pictures and high poly models from lidar scanning, feed them into unreal and expect things to go well. End result? 215GB download size and break on gpus <12GB of ram. Solution? Blame the users for being entitled, run at 720p 30fps (checkerboard upscaled with FSr to 1080p stretched to 4k). The reason? Diversity hires and thinking photorealism is the end all be all
>lazy
There are both performance gains and file size reduction by doing things like that, and making a rock that nobody will notice is re-used for decades is pretty fricking hard. Honestly that shit is genius.
>wow this game looks so good and soulful >did you know that they reused some assets in a creative way and you can't tell unless someone explicitly reveals this? >WTF THAT'S SO FRICKING LAZY, STUPID DEVS, YOUR SOULLESS GAME IS UGLY
I genuinely believe OP is underage, mods should start taking potshots at posts that are this fricking low quality and moronic, it would improve the overall quality of the board
OP is just clickbaiting. He may or may not believe what he said. Probably not. But he said it so his thread will actually get replies, rather than die after 5 minutes.
I remember there being something about the train in Half-life 2 actually being on top of a character model that's running really fast underneath the tracks
Well you have every dev just doing what epic says, and epic is saying "just import all the geometry data that exists in the entire world and let the engine handle it"
There's a reason a lot of single rock props are modelled overly large and with lots of varying shaped surfaces. It's literally so you can do this sort of thing.
The way that computer graphics works is you have all the vertex, edge (sorta), and texture/shader data stored in memory on the graphics card. The more unique rocks you want to have you're going to have to store all of that data for each of them.
It's more efficient to just store the 1 rock (or a small number of rocks), and then re-using it all over the place because 50 different places can point at that single rock stored in memory and draw it just with a different position, rotation or scale, and storing those 3 numbers (quick to update 3 numbers as well even for dynamic objects), instead of storing hundreds or thousands of bytes for each unique object.
Especially good for large levels that need to be streamed in dynamically because you can just say "hey, this rock? it's gonna be here the whole time, no need to constantly be swapping it in and out of memory"
Consoles were very memory constrained so this kind of thing is ideal.
>autistic moron hates efficiency
ahh jeez dude i wonder why he's yelling at clouds on twitter at 10PM he definitely isn't an underaccomplishing loser bro no way
No, it's the same rock as far as the GPU is concerned. See
The way that computer graphics works is you have all the vertex, edge (sorta), and texture/shader data stored in memory on the graphics card. The more unique rocks you want to have you're going to have to store all of that data for each of them.
It's more efficient to just store the 1 rock (or a small number of rocks), and then re-using it all over the place because 50 different places can point at that single rock stored in memory and draw it just with a different position, rotation or scale, and storing those 3 numbers (quick to update 3 numbers as well even for dynamic objects), instead of storing hundreds or thousands of bytes for each unique object.
Especially good for large levels that need to be streamed in dynamically because you can just say "hey, this rock? it's gonna be here the whole time, no need to constantly be swapping it in and out of memory"
Consoles were very memory constrained so this kind of thing is ideal.
>I CAN'T HECKIN' BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T MODEL TWO HUNDRED DIFFERENT 4,000,000 POLYGON ROCKS TO LITTER THROUGHOUT THE LEVEL TO TANK PERFORMANCE
this twitter ape should kill himself
This is working smart, not hard. If they were lazy, the levels would feel empty yet repetitive, and there would be like 7 total enemy types in the whole game.
>grunts >jackals >elites (stealth and sword elites could be considered distinct varieties) >hunters >enemy vehicles (could be broken down to turrets, ghosts, banshees, and wraiths) >sentinels >infection flood >combat flood >carrier flood
that's called proper priorities
who the frick is looking at all the rocks except for people nitpicking?
use the same texture for it and be done with it
he sure did, now its super HD textrues for no reason.
That's nothing compared to how all youtubers and game journos obsess over games not running on "Ultra", on the newest rig, with zero regard for how the game actually looks on various settings.
The game developer gives the option to run a game on settings that make it look good, for prosperity's sake, yet the moment you can't hit 60fps on the highest setting on the newest hardware, the game must be poorly optimized and shit.
It's so fricking moronic.
>you shouldn't be able to, at a bare minimum, run the game at 60fps at highest settings using the best available tech
what, did they program it on magic devices that operated outside the constraints of modern tech?
The one exception is games where the highest settings are reserved for picture modes and other dumb gimmicks like hardware demo tech (early ray tracing, etc)
Why, so the game will look outdated only a couple years after it comes out?
Frick off
Diminishing returns/you're moronic/you're moronic/what are you even arguing? You should hopefully be able to play most games at 144/165fps but here we are.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>what, did they program it on magic devices that operated outside the constraints of modern tech?
What do you think "ultra" settings is? You clearly value the name more than you value what you're actually looking at. It's usually just bumping up something like shadow distance from 32 -> 64 -> 128 units and shit like that, and it future proofs the game.
Yet people b***h and moan after every AAA release when in the actual image to image comparisons, ultra, and high look exactly the fricking same.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I think one of the problems with this is developers whose games auto-set people on high end hardware to ultra, so they would, naturally, assume they should be getting good frames. Beyond that, if they wrote disclaimers/had guides for settings to change for max performance gains/least negative outcomes to graphics, people wouldn't react with such statements.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Over the years I've seen infinite articles and shit stirring over, X game only hit 24 frames on highest graphics setting on a [insert most expensive current rig here], and then the subsequent huge amount of comments talking about how the company sucks or whatever.
Like dude just turn the SSAO down you can't even see the difference. The devs were gracious enough to allow you to push your settings further on 1080p instead of 4k, or for future machines, yet all you complain about is that you didn't get the "best" because you were told your whole life you deserved the "best". It's like some deep seated egocentrism in these people's brains.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I think you're projecting a bit anon, but yes, naturally Journos are ragebaiting. That being said plenty of modern games don't look any better than ones from 5 years ago, or only very slightly, yet run infinitely worse on far better hardware. A ton of games have terrible optimization and crutch on DLSS/FSR for serviceable framerates, not that that doesn't have its own problems.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>yet run infinitely worse on far better hardware.
The thing is, there is not much evidence that this is even true.
Video games have been fighting the huge resolution inflation going on. The actual reason why games don't look better than games 10 years ago, was because those games 10 years ago were made for 1080p 30fps, and they ran at 1080p at 30fps.
Now people expect better quality, but at 4k resolution, 60fps. That is literally 8 times the pixels getting pushed even if nothing changes.
2 months ago
Anonymous
most people aren't running games at 4k, but again, journos are moronic. You can also blame the publishers/console manufacturers for pushing the 4k shit, since they had a big hand in it.
As well, the top end graphics cards in 2013 (excluding Titan) could indeed run the games they supported at "ultra quality" 120fps. So, people would, understandably, assume that things would remain the same, esp. since almost no game has been running in actual native 4k, but is doing checkerboard upscaling or other cheats.
2 months ago
Anonymous
2 months ago
Anonymous
>those games 10 years ago were made for 1080p 30fps
How's that? PC players always had the expectation: if you can afford a good machine, you get 60fps.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No one is running 4K tho, it's all upscaling from 1080p/1440p.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>1080p/1440p.
lmao if you got a 4090
Realistically you'll be scaling 720p if you're lucky
2 months ago
Anonymous
>and they ran at 1080p at 30fps.
AHAHAHAHAHA
Dumb frick.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What resolution? Do you want a foliage/mesh-detail settings that you can extend in the future with better hardware? or higher quality volumetric fog? What if a supersampling option goes up to 2x?
All these things are just numbers the that the devs are giving you options for, but have a huge performance implication. The ONLY reason not to have options go higher than current hardware would support is that it hurts your little e-peen feelings when you spend 5 years of allowance on a 4090 and have no idea what the settings actually are.
2 months ago
Anonymous
30 years of 3D accelerated PC game history means we know the answer to that.
1) It *does* hurt your sales because idiots feel that if they can't set their settings to high or ultra then your game is "badly optimised" and they complain. No amount of "it's purely arbitrary" will make them understand
2) Making settings intended for "the future" almost never works because cards rarely advance along the same lines developers expect. They can't test the settings on current hardware so inevitably what happens is you get a new card 5 years later and you STILL can't set "Ultra Hyper Max" mode on because the code is bottlenecked by some random thing nobody thought of.
I agree, but I've always seen that more as an organic thing from the community than pushed by journos (maybe youtubers though). Always just seemed like people getting mad that they bought an expensive computer and can't run the absolute most graphically intense game at max on it. They imagine a history where this wasn't the case, but it's essentially always been like that since many settings are procedural and devs can just add a higher option that you realistically can't run well on anything (yet).
I agree the sentiment is super annoying though, which isn't to say unoptimized games don't exist.
>Old school devs make one of the most iconic games ever with one copy pasted rock >Modern devs can't make a single memorable level with one trillion polygon sandwiches
baka tbh fame
kind of soulful tbh.
>AI, draw me some different rocks
>Ganker: CRINGE!! SOULLESS!!
>AI, randomize the scale and rotation of this rock model
>Ganker: BASED!!! GENIUS!!! SOULFUL!!!!!!
>Lazy
That's called genius
yes. also op is stupid
Correct opinion and correct post.
reusing assets for differnet purposes AND making it look good - soul
I wouldn't have noticed if he didn't tell me
I still can't tell that they're the same. I see 9 different rocks in the first picture alone.
it really is just one rock
It's a fantastic looking rock to be fair
>I like that boulder. That is a nice boulder.
I see 3 rocks
Remember that you can scale it across axis independently, not just totally up or down. Need a thin rock? scale down 1 axis a lot. Need a long pointy rock? Scale up 1 axis (a lot), and remember you can do that in 3 different ways and get pretty different looking results. Like another anon said, you can also design your rocks specifically to have differentiating features so that you can use the same rock for different 'styles of rock' to get the shapes you're looking for since most of the time at least half of your rock will be obscured.
You can’t go too far with that unless the model is dynamically textured in some way (e.g. a triplanar mapped detail texture).
Good point, wasn't thinking about that. I think with lower quality older assets you could probably get away with it a bit more than having consistent texel density. Stretched textures were pretty common.
Nowadays you would surely just be able to justify having 5-10 rocks with useful generic features and minimal single-axis scaling.
/vtweets/
If it looks good and still manages to save resources it's just based
>save resources
Stick to PLAYING games and not pretending to know how they work. Your $60 is enough.
This is just a troll post, don't reply. I have a higher intellect so i'm able to realise these things
Don't ever comment on things you don't understand again, you fricking moronic tech illiterate subhuman. Trannies like you love to run their cum glazed mouths on subjects they have literally no comprehension of whatsoever. Fricking stupid troon.
>troony obsession
post ignored
mario clouds
No reason to store (and load) a bunch of fricking rocks on your hard drive when one will do. Actually based.
Because israelite company owners don't pay for shit, bootlicker.
ONE ROCK
I DON'T KNOW WHY
>he doesn't know why
OHNONONONONONO ROCKS BRO WE GOT TOO wienerY
*too rocky
>one rock
>turn it
>now you have two differing rocks
I don't see the problem.
Rocks are generally not looked at with much scrutiny. It's background filler and often overlooked. It's not about the detail, it's about the bigger picture and the atmosphere. Simply changing the orientation and size is usually enough to hide any noticeable repetition. Such a stupid thing to whine over. Granted, I notice things like this because I've been modding since Morrowind and Half-Life, so reusing assets is my middle name. Sometimes the neurotic modder in me will find shit like this, but if anything I'll just be impressed.
>David Reusing-Assets Davidson
Your parents really thought ahead
>Such a stupid thing to whine over.
Was he whining? I think most people can respect it as long as it looks good and isn't too noticeable without really looking closely
FRICKING ROCKSTOP
Rock fetishists are the worst
Good. Spend more time focusing on more important assets. No issue here.
Boring. So what if rocks are rocks. Let me know when the flora and clouds are the same asset.
NINTENDO
How the frick did I not notice this?
because you're 16?
>halo 3 level designer managed to use one rock for an entire level
>meanwhile devs now waste millions upon millions of dollars greenlighting rock designs and making an usual amount of rock assets just so you can walk past it without noticing any of it
awesome timeline.,
It's actually much worse than that, they don't "design" the rocks they take 8K tridimensional pictures and high poly models from lidar scanning, feed them into unreal and expect things to go well. End result? 215GB download size and break on gpus <12GB of ram. Solution? Blame the users for being entitled, run at 720p 30fps (checkerboard upscaled with FSr to 1080p stretched to 4k). The reason? Diversity hires and thinking photorealism is the end all be all
He's wrong btw. The same rock is used multiple times and rotated with clipping yes but hardly every rock. Twittertards as usual
>lazy
There are both performance gains and file size reduction by doing things like that, and making a rock that nobody will notice is re-used for decades is pretty fricking hard. Honestly that shit is genius.
So?
the one thing that would have improved Halo is 30 gigs of different rock models
You can barely tell the difference so it's well done by Bungie at the time. Twittertards OUT
>wow this game looks so good and soulful
>did you know that they reused some assets in a creative way and you can't tell unless someone explicitly reveals this?
>WTF THAT'S SO FRICKING LAZY, STUPID DEVS, YOUR SOULLESS GAME IS UGLY
I genuinely believe OP is underage, mods should start taking potshots at posts that are this fricking low quality and moronic, it would improve the overall quality of the board
>>wow this game looks so good and soulful
????
OP is just clickbaiting. He may or may not believe what he said. Probably not. But he said it so his thread will actually get replies, rather than die after 5 minutes.
more temperate people than I have called it instigating a flame war
I fricking hate that homosexual way of typing
I'M GONNA REITERATE MY POINT BUT NOW WITH ALL CAPS
NOW. WITH. ALL. CAPS.
>Only realized it almost 20 years later
Who cares? If it works, it works
we've had almost daily threads about this since the game came out anon
Lying sack of shit.
"boss says we need a new rock for every rock in the game"
"...why?"
I don't even remember what mission that is but I'm OUTRAGED
It's one of the best campaign shooter levels of all time bro!
work smarter, not harder
I remember there being something about the train in Half-life 2 actually being on top of a character model that's running really fast underneath the tracks
That's Fallout 3
Oh that's right, you're right. Got them mixed up.
I have played through the covenant 80-90 times and I hadn't noticed, maybe I should look down more.
I think you are remembering the train in fallout 3 which was a guy with a train head
HL2's train is made out of brushes
>mfw there are games right now that uses hundreds of different rock models to bloat storage space
>you will buy the 4TB nvme drive and you will be happy
If I'm paying $70USD + season pass + tip for a game I need the maximum amount of rocks
What if we're all the same soul rotated scaled and moved around
that's every souls game after the first one
maybe the forerunners just used one rock shape to save time and resources
nooo you have to waste time making more unique rocks nobody will notice for literally 20 years
this dude singlehandedly carrying the halo 3 mod community but he only shares it with like 15 people
>all these terminally online brain rot autists mistaking the post as outrage
touch rocks
sounds amazingly efficient and space saving
what is "the covenant"
Name of a level in Halo 3
Efficient use of assets is a forgotten art for modern piece of shit devs.
Well you have every dev just doing what epic says, and epic is saying "just import all the geometry data that exists in the entire world and let the engine handle it"
Probably saved a shit ton of resources on the 360. Based old Bungie, I never noticed.
There's a reason a lot of single rock props are modelled overly large and with lots of varying shaped surfaces. It's literally so you can do this sort of thing.
Reminds me of that table in Skyrim that's just a shelf put into the ground.
Better than downloading 60gb of hi res rock textures and models you see once
The way that computer graphics works is you have all the vertex, edge (sorta), and texture/shader data stored in memory on the graphics card. The more unique rocks you want to have you're going to have to store all of that data for each of them.
It's more efficient to just store the 1 rock (or a small number of rocks), and then re-using it all over the place because 50 different places can point at that single rock stored in memory and draw it just with a different position, rotation or scale, and storing those 3 numbers (quick to update 3 numbers as well even for dynamic objects), instead of storing hundreds or thousands of bytes for each unique object.
Especially good for large levels that need to be streamed in dynamically because you can just say "hey, this rock? it's gonna be here the whole time, no need to constantly be swapping it in and out of memory"
Consoles were very memory constrained so this kind of thing is ideal.
ok and?
some of these look clearly different however
>autistic moron hates efficiency
ahh jeez dude i wonder why he's yelling at clouds on twitter at 10PM he definitely isn't an underaccomplishing loser bro no way
That doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about rocks to dispute it
That's not being lazy, that's how they got the game to run on the OG Xbox
If you resize it then it's not the same rock DUMBASSES
No, it's the same rock as far as the GPU is concerned. See
I don't care what the gpu is concerned with
The rocks are different SIZES so they are not the SAME
Perfect. The computer can easily deal with 1 rock, while you get the results and to you it's hundreds of rocks. Exactly what they wanted.
Dumbass computer can't tell the difference between different sized rocks lmao
It’s pretty smart considered the fact I never noticed it 15+ years later since some splerg had to research it
number of rocks is my number one metric when rating video games, so this is pretty disappointing to hear.
NOTHING
BUT ROCK
This is literally the first time i've noticed and I've been playing halo 3 since 2008.
Best YouTube skit about game debs and publishers
https://youtube.com/shorts/PoAO15b3IKA?si=W79g38iWsCv2B8S6
>green shirt: reddit
>white shirt: Ganker
>I CAN'T HECKIN' BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T MODEL TWO HUNDRED DIFFERENT 4,000,000 POLYGON ROCKS TO LITTER THROUGHOUT THE LEVEL TO TANK PERFORMANCE
this twitter ape should kill himself
This is working smart, not hard. If they were lazy, the levels would feel empty yet repetitive, and there would be like 7 total enemy types in the whole game.
Halo 1 moment
Halo 1 is basic as frick but it has literally perfect gameplay. Nothing feels better than Halo 1 in the rest of the series.
>grunts
>jackals
>elites (stealth and sword elites could be considered distinct varieties)
>hunters
>enemy vehicles (could be broken down to turrets, ghosts, banshees, and wraiths)
>sentinels
>infection flood
>combat flood
>carrier flood
that's called proper priorities
who the frick is looking at all the rocks except for people nitpicking?
use the same texture for it and be done with it
Totalbuiscuit did a lot of damage to gaming when he convinced people that 'graphics' meant when you zoom in on the ground with a sniper rifle.
he sure did, now its super HD textrues for no reason.
That's nothing compared to how all youtubers and game journos obsess over games not running on "Ultra", on the newest rig, with zero regard for how the game actually looks on various settings.
The game developer gives the option to run a game on settings that make it look good, for prosperity's sake, yet the moment you can't hit 60fps on the highest setting on the newest hardware, the game must be poorly optimized and shit.
It's so fricking moronic.
I would argue that you should be able to run the game at 60fps at max settings if you have the newest/best hardware, yes.
You're wrong. It has never been like that, and there is no good reason that it should be like that.
>you shouldn't be able to, at a bare minimum, run the game at 60fps at highest settings using the best available tech
what, did they program it on magic devices that operated outside the constraints of modern tech?
The one exception is games where the highest settings are reserved for picture modes and other dumb gimmicks like hardware demo tech (early ray tracing, etc)
Diminishing returns/you're moronic/you're moronic/what are you even arguing? You should hopefully be able to play most games at 144/165fps but here we are.
>what, did they program it on magic devices that operated outside the constraints of modern tech?
What do you think "ultra" settings is? You clearly value the name more than you value what you're actually looking at. It's usually just bumping up something like shadow distance from 32 -> 64 -> 128 units and shit like that, and it future proofs the game.
Yet people b***h and moan after every AAA release when in the actual image to image comparisons, ultra, and high look exactly the fricking same.
I think one of the problems with this is developers whose games auto-set people on high end hardware to ultra, so they would, naturally, assume they should be getting good frames. Beyond that, if they wrote disclaimers/had guides for settings to change for max performance gains/least negative outcomes to graphics, people wouldn't react with such statements.
Over the years I've seen infinite articles and shit stirring over, X game only hit 24 frames on highest graphics setting on a [insert most expensive current rig here], and then the subsequent huge amount of comments talking about how the company sucks or whatever.
Like dude just turn the SSAO down you can't even see the difference. The devs were gracious enough to allow you to push your settings further on 1080p instead of 4k, or for future machines, yet all you complain about is that you didn't get the "best" because you were told your whole life you deserved the "best". It's like some deep seated egocentrism in these people's brains.
I think you're projecting a bit anon, but yes, naturally Journos are ragebaiting. That being said plenty of modern games don't look any better than ones from 5 years ago, or only very slightly, yet run infinitely worse on far better hardware. A ton of games have terrible optimization and crutch on DLSS/FSR for serviceable framerates, not that that doesn't have its own problems.
>yet run infinitely worse on far better hardware.
The thing is, there is not much evidence that this is even true.
Video games have been fighting the huge resolution inflation going on. The actual reason why games don't look better than games 10 years ago, was because those games 10 years ago were made for 1080p 30fps, and they ran at 1080p at 30fps.
Now people expect better quality, but at 4k resolution, 60fps. That is literally 8 times the pixels getting pushed even if nothing changes.
most people aren't running games at 4k, but again, journos are moronic. You can also blame the publishers/console manufacturers for pushing the 4k shit, since they had a big hand in it.
As well, the top end graphics cards in 2013 (excluding Titan) could indeed run the games they supported at "ultra quality" 120fps. So, people would, understandably, assume that things would remain the same, esp. since almost no game has been running in actual native 4k, but is doing checkerboard upscaling or other cheats.
>those games 10 years ago were made for 1080p 30fps
How's that? PC players always had the expectation: if you can afford a good machine, you get 60fps.
No one is running 4K tho, it's all upscaling from 1080p/1440p.
>1080p/1440p.
lmao if you got a 4090
Realistically you'll be scaling 720p if you're lucky
>and they ran at 1080p at 30fps.
AHAHAHAHAHA
Dumb frick.
What resolution? Do you want a foliage/mesh-detail settings that you can extend in the future with better hardware? or higher quality volumetric fog? What if a supersampling option goes up to 2x?
All these things are just numbers the that the devs are giving you options for, but have a huge performance implication. The ONLY reason not to have options go higher than current hardware would support is that it hurts your little e-peen feelings when you spend 5 years of allowance on a 4090 and have no idea what the settings actually are.
30 years of 3D accelerated PC game history means we know the answer to that.
1) It *does* hurt your sales because idiots feel that if they can't set their settings to high or ultra then your game is "badly optimised" and they complain. No amount of "it's purely arbitrary" will make them understand
2) Making settings intended for "the future" almost never works because cards rarely advance along the same lines developers expect. They can't test the settings on current hardware so inevitably what happens is you get a new card 5 years later and you STILL can't set "Ultra Hyper Max" mode on because the code is bottlenecked by some random thing nobody thought of.
Why, so the game will look outdated only a couple years after it comes out?
Frick off
I agree, but I've always seen that more as an organic thing from the community than pushed by journos (maybe youtubers though). Always just seemed like people getting mad that they bought an expensive computer and can't run the absolute most graphically intense game at max on it. They imagine a history where this wasn't the case, but it's essentially always been like that since many settings are procedural and devs can just add a higher option that you realistically can't run well on anything (yet).
I agree the sentiment is super annoying though, which isn't to say unoptimized games don't exist.
So your telling me they saved dev time by being creative.
Remember when devs were clever enough to do shit like this without people noticing for years and years?
pajeet devs nowadays would model 10000 different rocks and the game would run at 27fps with dlss3
>see that tiny rock over there?
>that bad boy is 100mb
>now multiply that shit by hundreds
DEEP LORE
>Why are video game devs so lazy?
>search for a job
>every single website career page is splashed with giant WE HIRE gayS banners
reusing assists are fine if you can't easily tell.
That's one really well designed rock model if it can look like dozens of different rocks
>NOOOO you can't just put a train hat on someone and make them move really fast
heh
never seen a single mention of this in 17 years until now. that means they did it masterfully.
Is it really worth mentioning? You can see things like this in a lot of games.
Does Halo 3 do a particularly good job at hiding it?
Before I scroll down this thread. I better see the mario clouds bush picture.
The Angry Asset Hating Nerd would tear this shit apart
To be fair, every planet is just the same rock with different parts of it broken off
literally everyone is just the same computer program running to fill in the world for me to interact with
Just wait until you learn what SpeedTree is.
>Old school devs make one of the most iconic games ever with one copy pasted rock
>Modern devs can't make a single memorable level with one trillion polygon sandwiches
baka tbh fame
>scaled
As Palworld shown that's a different model then you fricking moron. Fricks sake, how desperate are snoys to now shit on half-dead M$?
>rotated
>scaled
That's far more effort than level designers would put in today.