this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
114 points (99.1% liked)

Gaming

30618 readers
65 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Baldur's Gate 3 is currently taking up all the storage space I would give to Bethesda's sci-fi RPG.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm fully behind the idea that you should be able to opt for not downloading the biggest texture files and 3D assets, if you're gonna play at low settings, anyway.

But it's worth noting that "optimizing" the file sizes of high-fidelity games isn't really possible. You can't compress textures or 3D assets the same way you might an RGB image. Game textures contain a lot more layers than just color, in modern games they can contain material, depth and specularity maps, just to name a few. And that's before considering any accompanying bre-baked lighting data that entire levels may come with, which trades in the need to real-time render stuff for doing it in advance and storing how something is supposed to look, and shipping it alongside the game.

None of this can be easily compressed. It has to be retained losslessly, or you risk rendering artefacts.

Also, most game distribution services will send you an AGGRESSIVELY compressed (as in packed as a whole, using great amounts of CPU to pack it smaller without data loss) format, which your PC/console unpacks as it downloads. They too have every reason to save bandwidth.

But even then, you seldom see data savings of more than 10-30%. There just aren't that many corners to cut.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I’m not a game dev, but from my modding experience it depends on the game.

MOST of the games that have these insane file sizes actually do it to cut down on processing and on load time and reduce pop-in. If a texture or level doesn’t need any decompression, it loads faster. So entirely depends on the asset. So a lot of games do still compress textures. That’s why there’s a discrepancy between the data downloaded in steam and the actual runtime storage requirement.

The 3D models themselves are usually lower space. As is dialog and audio. Though all of those will be mildly compressed probably.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Texture block compression exists, and some of the available algorithms have fairly little impact on rendered visuals.

As you noted, asset scaling also exists in various forms, from mip mapping to audio codecs to alternate asset packs. Imagery intended for 4k and 8k displays is wasteful for people gaming in 1080p, let alone 720p.

The techniques required to cut down on bloat are well known. Some games just aren't using them, or aren't using them effectively. There's definitely room for improvement here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Absolutely.

But I did want to make the point that there aren't as many corners to cut as some might think.

And while lossless compression of course exists, better compression is usually also a processing trade-off. You can use more storage and less processing, or use more processing, and less storage.

Compression is not a magic tool that reduces file size for free, its doing math to store some given data using less bits, which then has to be done in reverse to get at the original data.