this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
534 points (97.8% liked)

Gaming

8585 readers
168 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.


2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.


I should not need to explain this one.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.


Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.



Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shweddy@lemmy.world 59 points 4 months ago (21 children)

Imagine how much more game you could fit on a hard drive if character models didn't have billions of triangles

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Model vertex count has a negligible influence on size. Model data is small (provided the textures aren't baked in), and modern GPUs can render ten thousand separately animated instances of the same base model simultaneously when using the right techniques.

It's the insanely high-resolution textures and audio that bloat install size. That and including the same files many times to reduce HDD seek time, but that's finally becoming less common as SSDs take over (or at least it was until the current component shortage).

I miss when HD texture packs were separate downloads. If I'm only running a game in 1080p, downloading a hundred gigabytes of 8k textures I'll never use is a colossal waste of bandwidth and disk space.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 9 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I remember being appalled when Titanfall 1 had a separate 80 GB download just for the audio because they couldn't be bothered to compress it. Audio compression has been largely a solved problem for 20 years now, even if the result is somewhat lossy.

If I’m only running a game in 1080p, downloading a hundred gigabytes of 8k textures I’ll never use is a colossal waste of bandwidth and disk space.

I kinda wonder if there's a visible difference between native 1080p textures and those that are downscaled from a higher resolution. I imagine there isn't, but I am curious about it.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 4 points 4 months ago

Massively depends on where the texture is used. If it's for a main character that gets closeups, body and especially detailed textures can be massive and can add up fast even when compressed. Little low contrast details can definitely work fine and go unnoticed next to super hifi textures while being small themselves, though so many just make everything hifi. Bleh.

I miss when games went for lowfi art instead of the modern deluge of AAA pseudo-cinema 100G+ games or friendslop with the art direction of a two day game jam... (obviously there are outliers, but the industry trends are disappointing lately)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)