| Richard_Feynman said:
I certainly do appreciate the tone of your response and your writing style in general. That is a rare thing for me to say. I get your argument, but for technical reasons I disagree. Why? It is very simple. Flying through the open world of GTA V in a jet enables me to reach each one of the (arbitrarily chosen) rendered cells in the city in a small enough time step to affect the quality of the rendered objects in each of these cells. As an experiment in the example, I've given both versions have the exact same assets loaded in. If you are moving faster than the frame rate of the render then it will look jerky. "There is no correlation between the linearity of a game and its technical demands." Because its an abstraction. All else being equal, the area of a loaded map being rendered doesn't change the demand of rendering itself. When moving across the map, its rendering different areas but its distributed amongst the timesteps. LINEAR GAMES HAVE BETTER GRAPHICS THAN OPEN WORLD GAMES This in truth doesn't counter my claim, and well I never made said statement in counter to someone elses assertion. Others made this argument to counter my claim, and I defended it. "There is no correlation between the linearity of a game and its technical demands." We can look at it a different way. This is important, so when you have the time please answer this: If there is no correlation between the linearity of a game and its techincal demands, then for what reason were there not a plethora of open world games flooding the market after GTA III's astounding success? If there were no difference in technical demands, then surely everyone could have said, "oh yes, this is better", and simply made many more of the games open world? Because they prioritize other things. If the game only used one portion of that map, then it would not need to waste time and ram storing in the extra parts of the map, and focus on graphical effects. Open world games render more of the world and spend more technical power overall. I offer the answer that linear games are less technically demanding in a myriad of areas: visually, ito design, system memory blah blah blah. If you could be more succinct with your statements (claims) then I'd appreciate it. Also, sources validating your claims would be appreciated. So I'm disagreeing with you, but not in bad spirits. |
My abstraction isn't real world. No developer in their right mind would take the say GTA5 and then only restrict the game to Micheal's House, still loading everything and doing everything the original game would for something the player would never see. No.
If they knew the player would never leave Micheal's home then, they could get rid of all the loading done to load the game map, abandon all the textures, models, Ai etc, slap on ultra HD textures on everything, render it at 4k and 120 fps and rarely ever have it drop to something as ghastly as 119 fps.
The openess (map scale) itself doesn't automatically make the game more taxing is what im saying, everything else does.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
