Use png and IDK I don’t remember which cmd line soft but it stripped out unused colors and compressed images like that one hard.
That, without the red lines and circles, and without jpeg jitter should be like 1kb. Or less less.
Now, as an oldtimer, when you load that 1kb image up, it will still take like 640x320 bytes (it was all 8bit) so 200KB of RAM. But back in the day I guess it was more like the original GB 160x144 so 22.5KB RAM needed to show that image.
Did it work like that?
No, because cartridges didn’t have a lot of space, and the consoles didn’t have much RAM, so you used tiles. You had a tile map image, each tile was 8x8 pixels pointing to a palette (so you could use 4-bits for the color. More or less so, there were a lot of ‘modes’). Each tile had a number and your screen was some 20x18 tiles x 1 byte numbers, designing the ‘tile’ to be shown at that particular position of the screen.
All done by hardware so way fast!
To make the scrolling run you had a ‘delta’ pixels to slightly move the “screen” around.
snooggums@midwest.social 10 months ago
SMB had game file size limitations in the dozens of kilobytes range.
Jerkface@lemmy.world 10 months ago
For comparison, that screenshot is 342kb, and Super Mario Bros is 40kb. The screenshot is more than 8.5 times bigger than the game it comes from.
sus@programming.dev 10 months ago
I managed to recreate almost the same screenshot in 5kb (and with much less compression artifacts!)
Image
before adding the text and circles it was only 1.6kb
Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 10 months ago
Use png and IDK I don’t remember which cmd line soft but it stripped out unused colors and compressed images like that one hard.
That, without the red lines and circles, and without jpeg jitter should be like 1kb. Or less less.
Now, as an oldtimer, when you load that 1kb image up, it will still take like 640x320 bytes (it was all 8bit) so 200KB of RAM. But back in the day I guess it was more like the original GB 160x144 so 22.5KB RAM needed to show that image.
Did it work like that?
No, because cartridges didn’t have a lot of space, and the consoles didn’t have much RAM, so you used tiles. You had a tile map image, each tile was 8x8 pixels pointing to a palette (so you could use 4-bits for the color. More or less so, there were a lot of ‘modes’). Each tile had a number and your screen was some 20x18 tiles x 1 byte numbers, designing the ‘tile’ to be shown at that particular position of the screen.
All done by hardware so way fast!
To make the scrolling run you had a ‘delta’ pixels to slightly move the “screen” around.
Fun times.
Time to go to bed 😪😴
dhtseany@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
I like this math lesson
bruhduh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Modern AAA games need optimisations too
PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Optimization? Pffffft. Nvidia probably pays game developers to make unoptimized games just to boost gpu sales.
bruhduh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
True game-developers-back-then-bs-game-developers-now-v0-cg2vl2q23x2b1-2219955071
Agent641@lemmy.world 10 months ago
*Laughs in Cities: Skylines 2
snooggums@midwest.social 10 months ago
Yes, but not ‘every rock is identical’ optimization like back then.
WarmSoda@lemm.ee 10 months ago
You’d be surprised
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
What I would give to have modern devs work that hard to reduce file sizes
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Is it more than the price of a hard drive?
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
For the sake of all my homies with data caps and limited funds, I would gladly give more than it costs me personally
ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Games on ssds benefit from faster load times. Don’t put your games on spinning metal.