Can someone who knows about video game coding explain to me why, in 2018, games are still filled with 2d assets?

Can someone who knows about video game coding explain to me why, in 2018, games are still filled with 2d assets?
Trees, smoke, fogs, fire, etc.
Wtf? Where are all the voxel or volumetric stuff dev talked about years ago?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TgP46O-VOlg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because consoles can't handle shit.

Consoles

why cant we have fully destructible environments in single player games? chipping at a stone wall with a knife for hours tier destructible s
>magic pickaxe blows through stone
>make your own traps
i just want a crazy realistic game physics wise, you'd think with technological advances we could do it already

Actual dev here. Blame consoles.

>Muh consoles.
Look at csgo.

2D assets are obviously way easier to develop, optimize and animate, are easier to render and hence make the game easier to run, etc

2D assets have their place on today's games. Things very far away don't really need to be 3D rendered unless you're playing in a very high resolution, the skybox doesn't really need volumetric clouds, and in theory adopting these shortcuts allow devs to focus on other graphical aspects that cause a much higher impact

your pic is just a clear example of lazyness/terrible application

Also on consoles.

Csgo was first developed for consoles, user.

Physics are very very very very very demanding of CPU and GPU power. I'm doing particle collision simulations at work and even a simple drop of water falling into a another busy of liquid takes hours to calculate just a few frames with regular home PC.

what, you mean like LOD meshes? Because you'd be a dumbass to make super high-poly, high-res 3d meshes for an object you can never get close to. It's to optimize the game and make it not run like shit.

Those guys were selling snake oil years ago, 2d assets are still key to lod

When done right it is hardly discernible from 3d

>Visible terrain is culled but not objects

If you can get away with making something 2d or giving something a low resolution texture, you should. No game has an infinite budget for money, memory, or time. You have to spend those budgets on the things that matter the most which means letting doing less important things as cheaply as possible.

Not saying consoles just to meme, but it is consoles fault. The highest end console is still only equal to a mid level PC. If devs didnt have to worry about their games running good on 2 or 3 different consoles then they could dedicate more time to ensuring you get the best performance on desktop cards possible.

Optimization is still important in 2018 and will most likely always be.
The real question is how much eye candy do you get from a 3d foliage model compared to a 2d one and how much does it affect the performances?

>Made for consoles
>Running a 14 year old engine
>Designed to be able to run on toasters
Gee I wonder why dipshit, csgo was never a PC exclusive

>if money wasn't an issue you could make a better [product]
interesting

you can do fully destructible enviroments at great cost, you wont be able to have fully realistic physics and doing AI for it would be a nightmare

performance you stupid nigger.

That's just LOD's swapping to 2D assets, that's just how games work user

Also current consoles have trash CPU's, so forget volumetric smoke/fog this gen

Put the lod asside, the rest is still full of 2d assets even if it's better hided.

The voxel stuff was impractical, they required a lot more memory and would be difficult to animate. Thereby drastically increasing loading times, also strain any game that dynamically loads assets (99% of open world games).
So we still have 2D assets, and they're around because it better for performance and more simple for devs to handle in about every single way.

because developers realized that at some point you have to lay off on muh realism in vidya so that the game can actually sustain a double digit framerate.

Why the hell is the Red Faction series seemingly the only series to be based around destructible environment? Every other game has certain sections that are destructible or really basic stuff like fences. Battlefield 3 was really fun when I played it because I could blow up a side of a building if some faggot kept sniping me. It never reached Red Factions potential of being able to topple entire buildings. Ace of Spades is fun as hell because you can cave in a base from underground if you were quiet enough or topple over a tower.
Is it really that resource heavy?

Consoles
Maybe next cycle we'll get some new features but I doubt it, xXboneXx and PS4 Bro are the most powerful consoles we've seen and still struggle constantly

>all the retards in this thread acting like they know anything about game development

fucking kek

I think the hard reason is that it'd break the balance of a lot games. Unless destructible environments is what a game is about, it probably has no place in the game.

Voxels are memory and performance hogs, even on mighty PCs, unless you do them Minecraft/NMS style, ie low res and polygonized.

Ok what about LoL, DOTA, PUBG, any other pc exclusive

>f devs didnt have to worry about their games running good on 2 or 3 different consoles
Yeah, they'd just have to worry about them running in about a million different PC specs.

yeah it looks like shit

>that fucking dithering
holy shit, almost threw up

>depth of field

destructable enviroment games are very expensive to make, they dont really lend themselves to the normal AAA experience

>DoF
>Tesselation
>Dat patchy 2d grass
>that flat super high resolution ground texture
>single plant stickong out of the concrete
>helmet clipping through neck thing
>consoles

None of those games even try to be graphically impressive

Because most pc gamers have shit tier hardware, you pctards cry about consoles yet pc exclusives don't even try

>tfw Sup Forums is too pleb to watch star citizen updates
youtube.com/watch?v=TgP46O-VOlg

To account for variability in hardware. This is unavoidable.
If you want to be impressed, download and run any professional GPU benchmarking software and try it on max

Why waste development time and funding on something that will only be useable by less than 1% portion of the consumer base

>console fanbois believe this

>shit nobody ever actually notices

>muh console boogeyman
People on this board really don't seem to realize that devs have neither the funding nor the desire to make games that look much better beyond what is capable by current gen consoles. Trying to make something that fully utilizes the technology of top-tier PCs is how you end up with tech showcases with shit gameplay that never come out i.e. Star Citizen.

levels of detail for distant rendering