- Jun 5, 2021
- 59
- 102
If by common practice in development you refer to "feature toggling", then you might misunderstood its purpose. You make features via toggles, but eventually (after feature is tested and stable) you remove switches, so code won't become too complex, smelly and unsupportable (even in big projects with big teams).I mean, I'm sure with the way they're coding it now, yes, it would require too much work. My issue is that from the offset, the new art assets should have been coded as a swap and not a hard coded replacement (they did it with the other cosmetic toggles). It's extremely common practice to work any potential cosmetic changes into toggles separate from a base model. The issue here is that they seemingly didn't plan for that, so now we're stuck with how things are atm.
I don't fault them since they're a small team and at the of the day it's the dev's choice, but it's at least something for them to keep in mind for any future projects. No point in burning bridges unnecessarily as a dev, imo.
But if your plan is to keep toggle forever as a part of the game arcitecture, it will cost a lot of time, not only during development of this change, but also after, if they decided to add new stuff (it would impact DLCs, bugfixes, mods, etc). I wouldn't choose this approach to support slightly different art style for the whole game. Way too much work for small returns
Last edited: