If you focus on 2, you don't have as many reusable parts, and you're adding pressure to optimize near the end of the dev cycle, which can result in catastrophic bugs from changing assumptions in the asset-code mix, like "we tightened when we load in streaming assets. If you do 1, then 2 becomes more challenging because you made more optimizing assumptions, so the game production may fall off schedule due to lousy tooling making it hard to actually test anything in-game. As games get more featureful more and more micro-categories of assets show up - bits of UI text, custom behaviors, scene transitions, camera movements and so forth.ģ. If you're doing something well within the constraints, your bottleneck is on implementing the specific types of assets that will make your game unique. If you're pushing the platform, you need every part of the asset pipeline to be optimized for it, and probably lower level runtime optimizations too.Ģ. Generalizing an engine has always been a very hard, two dimensional problem:ġ.
![jak and daxter ps2 manual buy jak and daxter ps2 manual buy](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/GR0AAOSwBO1eH8jz/s-l400.jpg)
![jak and daxter ps2 manual buy jak and daxter ps2 manual buy](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/P3EAAOSw92JdzI5y/s-l400.jpg)
#Jak and daxter ps2 manual buy code#
Depending on the structure and communication flows the game teams can feel like code was "thrown over the fence" at them, or they feel chained into a method of asset production, builds and testing that is, for their purposes, extremely costly. It's a "can't win" scenario in that the presumed advantage of a large org is that studios can share tech and therefore get an edge in deploying it across all titles - but they can't do it in a way that's really optimized to anyone's particular situation. They seem to happen because someone already knows they want a Lisp, they end up picking Racket without needing anyone else's permission, and the people using it are capable of designing and building whatever missing pieces they need. This is one of the Racket success stories. Which I'll partly attribute to a Lispy DSL that helped them execute immersive storytelling in a zombie stealth shooter.)
![jak and daxter ps2 manual buy jak and daxter ps2 manual buy](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qUcAAOSwdqxeyNzy/s-l400.jpg)
![jak and daxter ps2 manual buy jak and daxter ps2 manual buy](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/UZEAAOSwnl1fT7it/s-l300.jpg)
(I dislike all zombie franchises, but at a key point towards the end of the nonlinear narrative and playing in the game, I was surprised how much I really wanted to protect the kid. Starting at around 10m into the talk, Liebgold says their DC language for TLOU (to get what they most needed from a DSL even if using C++ instead of GOAL) was implemented in Racket.įor anyone not familiar with TLOU, it was a critically-acclaimed game, and my personal all-time favorite game for storytelling that somehow grabbed me. Related talk by Dan Liebgold from Naughty Dog, at RacketCon 2013: