GameSalad

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

File size for the overall game and making animation decisions

Hello, I'm in the planning stages. Since I'll probably have a lot of sprite animation in my game, and I plan to design at max res for the iPad 3 (2048x1536), I don't want to plan for too ambitious of a frame rate.

-- What, if anything, should I keep in mind about file size for the entire game?
-- Would just adding up my estimate of total file size of planned images be a good rule of thumb?
-- Does GS (or the Apple store or whatever) have limits I need to keep in mind?
-- Regardless of technical limits, people presumably don't want a giant app... are there some kind of practical limits you'd suggest I shoot for?

Advice appreciated!

Comments

  • SolarPepperStudiosSolarPepperStudios Posts: 754Member
    Here is what I know:
    1. You should keep in mind the story behind your game. If you are too focused on making the app instead of making it well then it won't turn our great. (Unless its a puzzle game or things like that where there is no story.) If you are looking for something else then I would say keep music in mind. Music sets the mood of the game and is one of the most important parts of a good game.
    2. I would say, don't worry too much over your game size. Just be smart about it an delete any unused music or images.
    3. No, not that I know of. I know that you can at least go 2GB because I've had a 2GB racing game before so no, not that I know of. (Like I said though, just be smart with your files.)
    4. I would say, shoot for under 500 mb. Thats half a gig and should be plenty of space unless your making a REALLY high resolution game.

    Anyone disagree? :)
  • CrazyDaisyCrazyDaisy Posts: 5PRO
    Hi! Thanks for the reply. Sure, of course I know story is important. I'd even say it's the main point, typically.

    So basically it sounds like I should be tidy about only including the proper files that belong in the game (art etc.) and beyond that, just use as much space as is necessary to do the game properly.

    Of course I'll still try to be as efficient as possible, too! Thanks.
  • SolarPepperStudiosSolarPepperStudios Posts: 754Member
    @CrazyDaisy No problem! Make sure to tell everyone when your game is done! I always look forward to seeing new games in the community. ;)
  • SocksSocks London, UK.Posts: 12,822Member
    What @Utveckla_Games said + try to stick to the 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 (etc) rule with image sizing.
  • sawkasteesawkastee Posts: 184Member
    edited April 2013
    Not trying to hijack this thread, just have a follow up question to @Socks comment.

    "try to stick to the 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 (etc) rule with image sizing"

    help me better understand this, does it mean that if my image is 132x132 even though it's divisible by 4 that I am wasting space since ram is allocated into these "chunks" and I am better off scaling it down to 128x128?

    The further I got up in image scale the more space I could be wasting?

    512, 1024, 2048

    e.g. an image at 1020 is wasting difference between 512 minus 1020, when I should just go up to 1024?
  • sawkasteesawkastee Posts: 184Member
    Not sure why the @Socks didn't work in my above post.
  • SocksSocks London, UK.Posts: 12,822Member
    edited April 2013
    sawkastee said:

    . . . does it mean that if my image is 132x132 even though it's divisible by 4 that I am wasting space since ram is allocated into these "chunks" and I am better off scaling it down to 128x128?

    Yep !

    A 132 x 132 image is using up a 256 x 256 chunk of memory.
    Scaling it down to 128 x 128 would mean it would squeeze into a chunk of memory 75% smaller.
    sawkastee said:

    . . . an image at 1020 is wasting difference between 512 minus 1020, when I should just go up to 1024?

    Not 100% sure what "the difference between 512 minus 1020" means ?

    There is nothing compelling you to scale your images up to 1024 (from 1020), you won't be saving any memory, if 1020 was what you wanted then I'd stick with 1020.

    If on the other-hand your image was 1028, it might be worth compromising a little and scaling your image down to 1024 as your memory usage would be around 75% smaller.
This discussion has been closed.