Nightshape

THE BACONING! I love Deathspank!

Are you speaking about layout and design or implementation? Yes. Thank you for a useless response.

Are you speaking about layout and design or implementation?

I DO , I won't break NDA though

Had a lot of fun playing deathspank with my missus.

Not sure if this was mentioned, but this is all the rage: http://www.raspberrypi.org/

No need for guessing, the IWD image is a 4.13MiB JPEG image, which means it's a little more than 3 bits per pixel, or 13% of an uncompressed 24bpp image. And it's still very high quality. So yes, 45MiB of on-disk storage for 8 times the pixels would be plenty. With optimised compression you could probably get below 2bpp. Lossy compression is not the way to go at all...

*sigh* I understand what Might make you happy to know that I wouldn't go near Apple software for the life of me, or pay exorbitant prices for mediocre hardware. That said, do you recognize the issue with scaling assets to be readable at native resolutions on both high/low DPI monitors? That entire thread is a mess because of the issue being fairly hard to grasp, and my (uneditable) opening post making a mess of explaining it. Apple just happened to pioneer delivering these kinds of products to a mainstream market, so, for most people, their design solutions & marketing terms are easiest to relate to in order to understand the underlying issue. That said, I'd love to see this game be 4-5x the install size of the average game, just like BG was back in the day, if that's what it takes to deliver the quality. I remember BG taking up half my HDD, dad wasn't happy. I understand what you're saying, and I don't want to get into it... But quite simply - it's more to do with how browsers render images than how a game renders and image. In regards to DPI support, I can't perceive that as being a difficult thing to implement - it's more to do with our final matrix on the quad when we render it... But anyways, point being is that DX11 based GPU's have a 16k x 16k limit on texture sizes, and that's also huge. What you suggest is infact not even feasible for the technology... Unless of coarse there is some pre-processing stage where the image is sliced up, and the viewable area's data is all we see. Theoretically DPI support shouldn't be hard, but mostly its a pointless waste of resources. The pixel you see is always the same data, but a texel is how large the representation of that pixel in on screen. Texel to pixel ratio should be 1:1 in something like PE. That as simple as I can describe it right now.

Yeah, Hansoft is an excellent piece of kit when correctly used. Hansoft actually hire ex-game dev's too ;-) I know a couple there, one of which was a producer.

I'm playing 'rent a car in Sweden that will let me go to Poland' game. It's not easy, or fun.

It's absolutely pointless to use a tile-based system for this kind of game. Tiles themselves aren't bad but you can't build something of the same kind of quality as what you see when the entire world is hand drawn like in the old IE games. Between Apple fanboy DPI man, and strange Tileset endorsement man I'm thinking about stopping posting in here.

That wouldn't hit the visual target. They'd be selling themselves short entirely.

Technically you should be able to stream bitmap data provided that it's organised correctly. This brings down the image footprint massively.

Example image aside. Everything is speculation. Your math isn't wrong, it's just that you're only factoring in, by your own admission, static images. The largest size one could expect on DX 11 hardware, at least in terms of a single image is 16,384 x 16,384, then you have 4 bytes for RGBA. That's the largest static image you could expect to see. Yeah... work it out, It's pretty damn high. It's also an issue in regards to memory footprint. There are in fact two issues, compression ratio - which is unknown, but you certainly don't use lossy compression in a game like this. We'll obviously see smaller images also, but I'm looking at the worst case. It's also likely that the compression ratio isn't uniform, you'll not get 50% lossless compression across all images, it'll specifically depend on the image itself, the demonstration image would actually compress really well, but that's because of common colours. One of the advantages to DXT compression which is lossy is that it's always predictable in terms of size. What I can say is that between memory footprint at runtime for a level, and disk space, in regards to all assets, Josh is correct to say they'd likely need multiple blu-rays. I'm actually concerned about end user Specs, along with general storage needs. I don't think the main issue is directly with storage of compressed data, but more in regards to decompression, and storage at runtime.

Too much apple fanboi, web-dev, not enough actual sense being spoken here. I ain't even going to bother, I'd sooner argue religion with a extremist muslim. Edit: This thread is pointless.

Unity is a good engine for relatively small teams. It doesn't scale very well for larger teams, but this kind of product doesn't require a bleeding edge 3d engine, it requires a robust functional engine which can hit the desired platforms. It's a very good choice for Obsidian.

I actually have a solution for this which I'm currently writing up and hope to detail in this thread at some point over the next few days. Needless to say, it's not that hard of a problem, it's also worth mentioning that Unreal Engine 3, and ID Tech are dealing with entirely separate issues. DXT compression is also entirely unsuitable for a game like this, and one risks in a cursory manner either massive texture footprints for levels, or potential pop-up on low performance machines. Texture streaming for a 3D game is an entirely different problem, as one has to bare in mind that textures exist at different mip-levels. Also Frisk, your numbers are well out. I'll detail more in the solution later in regards to footprint, and area sizes etc...

It isn't sarcasm. I assume you send bugs to a generic e-mail.

I'm so proud.

Absolutely, one secures a player - base by being different to the rest so to speak. PE, and Squadron 42 are different to anything else on the market right now. They may not be entirely different from the games that did exist, but they're not in development now. Some people seek out what they like. Some people buy what they're sold.

What worried me were the people who afterwards insisted it was a great movie with an original story and a deep, meaningfull message Exactly.

Writing jobs in the games industry are few and far between. I wish you luck but past saying keep writing, get a job as QA on a game that has a lot of writing, it's very hard to really advise you. I got into the industry by working hard, getting a degree and making games. As a programmer, its highly competitive, and an ever changing environment.

Compared to the FPS Market... Please. The sad reality is that the more marketing dollars that are put behind a product, the more copies it'll sell - I hate that this is the reality, it tells me a lot about my fellow humans, but that's a topic for another day. You'll never get the same kind of sales as you do for CoD just by throwing money at it. It's a complex thing to try an analyse - why Call of Duty has been so popular. I'm inclined to say it's a sign of our times. How many people went to see the spectacle that was 'Avatar' a few years back? If yes, you're part of the problem Something like FFXIII isn't that complex, and DA2 was made over 11 months. It's actually a different kind of complexity, as they're very different beasts. CoD being heavily scripted, running at 60FPS, with lots of one shot assets. It isn't about 'how difficult' they are to make, it's all about return on investment, CoD will sell more copies than any RPG made using the same kind of development budget.

Ahhh... The reaction to Yellow not being an art direction on AP is flooding back. AP, terrible artwork, terrible spangled texture, looked awful. Didn't get many happy fanboi responses.

This makes the assumption that Cyberpunk 2077 is further along in development than 'Witcher 3' which we don't even know if it is in development. As I mentioned previously, new IP and traction on said IP is hard to get. I also think you're assumption may be backwards, it's logical from a development perspective, as iterations on existing franchises take less time than iterations on new IP's.