1
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
14 readers
5 users here now
Rules:
1. Be kind
No doxxing, bigotry, personal attacks
2. Be sincere
No spam, promotion, repetitive posts
3. Posts should ask a question
End with a "?"
4. Replies should answer the question
No grandstanding, saber-rattling, brigading
founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
Gonna say yes- but that's because they don't sound very significant.
First, the 98% texture memory reduction is a made up BS statistic, ignore that.
Second, people have been dealing with blurry stretched out textures since Mario 64 and Quake 1 so it's the way you expect a too-close texture to degrade and it's not that bad- it's not clear that degrading into high-resolution triangles and circles and arcs instead would be an improvement. Looking at the screenshots, I am not impressed by how those textures look- even if it's justified as going with the game's style, subjectively I think they looks kind of ass.
I'm even going to guess that none of the other devs at the game company are as impressed by this gimmick as the guy who came up with it but they have to pretend to be because he's their boss.
Textures take up a lot of space and processing power, any significant reduction should improve performance.
Why do you think the numbers are BS? Dp you mean "likely inflated"? It's not a statistic, it's algebra from before and after they used vector pixels rather than conventional pixels.
I don't doubt they saved that much- you can naively downsample a 512x512 texture to 20x20 and it will take up less 98% space and look about 98% more ass. And clearly what they invented looks better than that blurry blocky alternative, but how much better? It's sure not 100% as good as the normal hi-res, and at short distance, maybe worse because you notice the hard edged Art Deco shapes more than you would notice the blurryness.
Maybe looks as good as a really well made 128x128 antialiased texture that's 1/16 the size, with hardware filtering, but that's the subjective part, which is why it's a meaningless saving figure.
And the 'meh' screenshots matter, because now that you're only taking up 2% of your old texture size, are you using that to make your texture maps look 50x as vivid, or 50x as detailed, 50x as varied, or just 50x awesome on some way, vs. what they are or otherwise would have been? From the screenshots; no. Not seeing it.
They're able to use such small textures by drawing things in a way that fits the shapes. So the art team probably likes this even less than the other developers ( also less likely than the coders to complain because they "have an art job*- at a game studio- in the 2020s ) for having to learn a janky, probably-vibe-coded internal tool to draw all their stuff instead of Krita and Aseprite or whatever.
Vector images look exactly as high res regardless of the image size.
The significant part of vector pixels is simply that textures now use 50x less space as an asset, not that with 98% more space they can fit in 98% more detail or vividness. The benefit is efficiently using resources and processing power. This is like your electricity bill costing 98% less by using different appliances. Pretty useful for a lot of people if it works as described.