✍️ Vipin Trisal's Blog

Lately, I've seen several game studios claiming the title of "India's first AAA game studio." This has me contemplating: what truly defines a studio as AAA? ​Is it determined solely by the final product, or is it a reflection of the entire ecosystem behind it? ​Does it simply boil down to the "AAA quality" of a single game? ​How much does the talent pool matter? Is it about building a diverse, multi-faceted, and multi-cultural team? ​Should an environment that fosters continuous growth and innovation be considered a key part of the definition? ​ My take is that while creating a AAA game without mature processes is difficult but not impossible, a studio that aims for both a AAA product and a AAA work environment is planting a seed for the future. That is the foundation that will truly grow and, in time, bear fruit. ​ Ultimately, is "AAA" a label for the game, or for the studio that creates it? ​Would love to hear your thoughts. Originally published ...

Should a game's physics be simulated or emulated? I had a fascinating discussion with a video game engineer about this very topic, and it reveals so much about the art of game development. ​On the surface, the two concepts sound similar, but they are worlds apart: ​▶️ Emulation is like a clever magic trick. It's about understanding an input (like a car hitting a wall) and creating a pre-designed, believable output. It’s efficient and light on system resources. ​⚙️ Simulation is like building a mini-universe. It applies the actual rules of physics to that same input, calculating a realistic outcome from scratch. It’s powerful and dynamic but incredibly demanding on performance. ​Here's the developer's dilemma: If emulation can be done so well that a gamer would never know the difference, is a resource-heavy simulation necessary? Should we build something complex just to flex our technical prowess, or should we use the simpler, more efficient method? ​The answer isn't...