Avatar

Absolutely. (Destiny)

by MacAddictXIV @, Seattle WA, Wednesday, August 26, 2020, 07:33 (32 days ago) @ Morpheus

But multiplayer maps are small contained areas with no additional loading spots—mere megabytes. The gametypes themselves? Kilobytes, if not bytes.


This is just... not correct. What do loading spots have anything to do with size of a file? That's just a coordinate on the map. A gametype is probably a bit bigger. A class that holds all the information, probably a bit bigger, but without a proper map to play it on the game type is useless. Also, as it was mentioned no one likes it.

But to compare a Multiplayer map vs a planet is not based strictly on size. It is based on assets and the quality of those assets. Planets are going to have a lot of repetitve lower quality assets. Higher quality assets as well but only in areas that are mission important I bet. Multiplayer maps have a lot of detail crammed in to a smaller map compared to PvE maps.

So to just roughly compare things like that is just not right. You have no idea the quantity and size of those assets.


I have to disagree. So, what I mean by loading zones, is the planet and it’s surrounding areas. For instance, on a place like Titan, you have the public area, it’s enemies and environment, assets like ammo, items and displays, interactive items such as patrol beacons and rally flags, instant drop-in/dropout matchmaking, pre-loading other public areas, lost sectors, and all of the stories, adventures, strikes and quests, including any possible versions of those. A multiplayer map, however, only has the environment, ammunition, any relevant sky boxes, or map specific features. While the detail might be higher, there’s undoubtedly much less of it.

Yes, I don’t have a clue of the size of assets in a map, or the map as a whole. But I know for sure a multiplayer map alone isn’t gonna be gigabytes in size.

all I know and from what I can guess as a software engineer is that software and logic is much cheaper on a whole than graphics.

So all the logic surrounding a landing zone and the activity is indeed complex in the game, but code base wise it's just a bunch of code triggers. My guess for what they are trying to do with saving space is to get rid of a whole set of planet graphic assets because all of those planets/themes use the same graphic assets. But I digress. I think what matters is two things when it comes to graphics, the amount of assets and the quality of them. If a planet uses the same assets 20 low quality assets over and over again even if it's a massive zone, but a Multiplayer map uses 15 high quality assets but few times. It could be that the multiplayer map is twice the space taken on your hard drive.

So all I'm trying to say is, just because it looks big and complex, does not at all mean that it takes up more space on your hard drive. It's more likely, for sure, but it's also a very complex piece of software and it's easy to forget it.

I know pretty darn well you're not shaving off an arm or a leg with that size of data. And then Gambit—removing half the maps (and two of the only three gametypes) so that there's only four maps for three years?

Sweet.

Jesus.


I'm not saying it's right on a gameplay perspective, but don't just throw out numbers and say that it's all smoke and mirrors based on size.


I honestly don’t know what else could be gained from a move like that. Size or not, this is a disaster waiting to happen.

We shall find out.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread