Rockstar and the Easy Way Out

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

I guess you played the game to know it's smaller. Also san andreas was less than 2 gigs. The more content in a game requires a higher cost and more time plus no one knows much about the game so take a chill pill.

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

I guess you played the game to know it's smaller. Also san andreas was less than 2 gigs.

rasstarman

Nope, I haven't played it. I'm going off what Rockstar said about the game's size.

I guess you played the game to know it's smaller. Also san andreas was less than 2 gigs. The more content in a game requires a higher cost and more time plus no one knows much about the game so take a chill pill.

rasstarman

True, but look at Microsoft Flight Simulator X. The game has 14GB, all the world mapped, several thousands airports and they sell it for $59 dollars.

you dont need a map bigger than san andreas. they said they modeled the map to be lifelike and fit for an awsome gaming expierence at the same time. instead of having a larger map, they are giving us spectacular graphics, physics, and gameplay, and that is what is important this generation.
NadUberAlles

[QUOTE="rasstarman"]

I guess you played the game to know it's smaller. Also san andreas was less than 2 gigs. The more content in a game requires a higher cost and more time plus no one knows much about the game so take a chill pill.

lordxymor

True, but look at Microsoft Flight Simulator X. The game has 14GB, all the world mapped, several thousands airports and they sell it for $59 dollars.

What does Flight Simulator have to do with anything? Flight Simulator is used to train pilots etc and it's not a game for everyone. I personally couldn't get into any of the GTA games but to me the game wouldn't benefit from a huge map. Did Rockstar say the map was smaller though?

wrong, next gen is supposed to have better everything, cmon...i dont want a great looking game, with great graphics and awesome gameplay, but too small....u pay for next gen u want next gen..not last gen with better graphics...at least thats what i think...they could have done so much more with gta4...somebody said gta:sa was 2 gigs..i think it was bigger than that, but if 2 gigs is the case imagine 9 gigs(dvd) or 25 gigs(bluray)..so arent they falling a little bit short?psyum

That's exactly how I feel. Next-generation is supposed to be better in every way, not because someone said it should, but because it can.

san andreas was 4GB not 5 and not 2, though i agree with the arguement they are being lazy but you have 2 understand that not making it for the xbox will lose them A LOT of sales, in my guess around 4 million. And if they did make it 20gb or whatever, then it wouldnt be able to fit on a DVD9, so you should see it from their point of view and remember that it was never exclusive as tt came out eventually for xbox in the previous generation

[QUOTE="psyum"] wrong, next gen is supposed to have better everything, cmon...i dont want a great looking game, with great graphics and awesome gameplay, but too small....u pay for next gen u want next gen..not last gen with better graphics...at least thats what i think...they could have done so much more with gta4...somebody said gta:sa was 2 gigs..i think it was bigger than that, but if 2 gigs is the case imagine 9 gigs(dvd) or 25 gigs(bluray)..so arent they falling a little bit short?shady_825

That's exactly how I feel. Next-generation is supposed to be better in every way, not because someone said it should, but because it can.

So having a huge map is suppose to make a game better? Like I said the more content the more time and money it will take to make games. Developers have to work within their budgets. YEs the bluray can hold 25 gigs but doesn't mean developers when spend a couple million more to fill it up.

san andreas was 4GB not 5 and not 2, though i agree with the arguement they are being lazy but you have 2 understand that not making it for the xbox will lose them A LOT of sales, in my guess around 4 million. And if they did make it 20gb or whatever, then it wouldnt be able to fit on a DVD9, so you should see it from their point of view and remember that it was never exclusive as tt came out eventually for xbox in the previous generation

dboy482

San Andreas was 2.8 gigs on the Xbox and had 480P resolution and dolby digital. The PS2 version is 2.3 gigs without 480P and dolby digital.

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

It seems there's been a misunderstanding.  The game will be a tad bit smaller than San Andreas but, if think about how much space was spend on countryside and then think that all that space will be city in San Andreas, you truly get an idea of just how large it will actually be and then consider all the extra stuff they are inevitably going to put in there not to mention graphics. 

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

The developers did say that the map would be smaller thaen san andreas, but they also said that it would have more detail and more to do within the map. I think GTA 4 is overhyped. Even after watching the trailer I wasn't impressed. THe men look old gen. If you play Saint's row you will see it has better graphics and this was GTA 4. I think you you expect too much of this game. This game is going to sell when it comes out but I don't think it is going to be a leap forward. Just more of the same thing. Listen to the story: I russan guy comes to america to find work. Sounds very familiar!

You have no idea how games are made or what makes a good game. That is what your post tells me. A smaller detailed city is much better than a city or state three times the size with much less detail. For example, I think GTA3 and Vice City for that matter are both better than San Andreas. The idea of having a whole state was cool but it just doesn't work all that well.

I think focusing on an extremely detailed version of Liberty City and making the best possible game out of it is the best way to go. They're not developing on PS2 anymore so the time it takes to make assets and the money required has increased exponentially. That's the biggest problem as far as your arguement goes. If you'd like to send Rockstar millions of dollars and another hundred employees, feel free.

[QUOTE="lordxymor"][QUOTE="rasstarman"]

I guess you played the game to know it's smaller. Also san andreas was less than 2 gigs. The more content in a game requires a higher cost and more time plus no one knows much about the game so take a chill pill.

Deihmos

True, but look at Microsoft Flight Simulator X. The game has 14GB, all the world mapped, several thousands airports and they sell it for $59 dollars.

What does Flight Simulator have to do with anything? Flight Simulator is used to train pilots etc and it's not a game for everyone. I personally couldn't get into any of the GTA games but to me the game wouldn't benefit from a huge map. Did Rockstar say the map was smaller though?

Don't kid yourself, the game is detailed enough to train pilots(using a simulator), but it's a game, market to gamers as a simulation game. Their price is competitive with other PC games.

If they were marketing it as just a pilot trainning software, they would charge much more for it.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/features/hotspot/index.php?id=446&om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;img;1

They talk about this issue in the hot spot and basically explain that some people thought the ps2 version of SA filled a daul layer dvd but that was a myth. The game filled 4 gigs on the ps2 and was not even  a dvd9 disc.  The xbox version of Sa came in at 2.45 gigs with a couple more features than the ps2 version. With all the textures for GTA IV fit on a regular dvd, would bluray be the end all for this game, they said probably not! There will be exclusive DLC for both versions and space would not be an issue whatsoever!

The guys at gamespot confirmed the true gig space used on both the ps2 and xbox versions of SA and they never topped over 4 gigs with the xbox version having more content and using less space.

 you realize how this is possible? MS has some of the most state-of-the-art compression today which allows dev's the ability to add nearly twice the amount of info using a 9 gig disc. And now of the games so far have come close to using 9 gigs.

Quality over quanity. I would rather have a smaller, more detailed enviroment than a huge area with not much going on. I think Gta4 is gonna be the new grand theft auto 3. because grand theft auto 3 was the best and i think 4 will be just as innovative as that.

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

To tell you the truth, I am glad they are making it smaller. I didn't finish San Andreas because it took like 10 minutes just to get from city to city. It got boring too quickly when you have to spend that much time just driving.

 I agree, anything larger than SA would just be too big. I would rather have the game much more detailed and a little bit smaller. They said that there will be no large open spaces like in SA, which to me = less long journeys!! Dont get me wrong, i like a vast detailed world, but it gets to a point where it can be overkill. Like someone said before, would you be prepared to wait probably an extra year for Rockstar to double the size of the game?!? I know i wouldnt.

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

this game specially for ps3 will be some hard s*it to develop on, i would rather see good graphics than bigger space although you've got a point that the lack of space is gonna be dissapointing but i bet rockstargames if an update san andreas were ever to be made in a 7th generation console (which will of course never happen) like the ps3 it was gonna take em about 5 years or something this generation specially the ps3 is really hard to develop for. i bet developers are under pressure to finish this in time and i give you about a 40% chance that the current launch date will be delayed, even if it is delayed a few days,

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

Sorry but I for one am ecstatic that Rockstar has decided to scale back the setting.  I've been enjoying the GTA series less and less since III came out due to all of the nonsense that really doesn't add anything to the heart of the game.  The setting in III became like the back of your hand by the time you called it quits and stopped playing (I still remember everything about those 3 Islands).  San Andreas has so obscenely big that I feel like if I picked it up again right now I would have already forgotten where half of the landmarks were. 

more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.punisher2k8

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

You have no idea how games are made or what makes a good game. That is what your post tells me. A smaller detailed city is much better than a city or state three times the size with much less detail. For example, I think GTA3 and Vice City for that matter are both better than San Andreas. The idea of having a whole state was cool but it just doesn't work all that well.

I think focusing on an extremely detailed version of Liberty City and making the best possible game out of it is the best way to go. They're not developing on PS2 anymore so the time it takes to make assets and the money required has increased exponentially. That's the biggest problem as far as your arguement goes. If you'd like to send Rockstar millions of dollars and another hundred employees, feel free.

Coldplay07

 Man, the flaming...can't anyone on the internet state a disputing opinion without trying to insult other people? My argument is not that the game should simply be bigger. I'm saying that their excuse is BS. They're saying it's smaller because the level of detail is higher. I think they could make the game bigger and still keep it just as detailed as they want it to be now. It makes no sense that we should have to pick between environment size and attention to detail. If they have the space to put it there, the only reason they wouldn't do it is because they want their hands on our money ASAP...or as soon as October.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/features/hotspot/index.php?id=446&om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;img;1

They talk about this issue in the hot spot and basically explain that some people thought the ps2 version of SA filled a daul layer dvd but that was a myth. The game filled 4 gigs on the ps2 and was not even  a dvd9 disc.  The xbox version of Sa came in at 2.45 gigs with a couple more features than the ps2 version. With all the textures for GTA IV fit on a regular dvd, would bluray be the end all for this game, they said probably not! There will be exclusive DLC for both versions and space would not be an issue whatsoever!

The guys at gamespot confirmed the true gig space used on both the ps2 and xbox versions of SA and they never topped over 4 gigs with the xbox version having more content and using less space.

 you realize how this is possible? MS has some of the most state-of-the-art compression today which allows dev's the ability to add nearly twice the amount of info using a 9 gig disc. And now of the games so far have come close to using 9 gigs.

cjnwo4life

Best post in this thread! :)

Thanks for providing this important info.

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.LosDaddie

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

You have no idea how games are made or what makes a good game. That is what your post tells me. A smaller detailed city is much better than a city or state three times the size with much less detail. For example, I think GTA3 and Vice City for that matter are both better than San Andreas. The idea of having a whole state was cool but it just doesn't work all that well.

I think focusing on an extremely detailed version of Liberty City and making the best possible game out of it is the best way to go. They're not developing on PS2 anymore so the time it takes to make assets and the money required has increased exponentially. That's the biggest problem as far as your arguement goes. If you'd like to send Rockstar millions of dollars and another hundred employees, feel free.

Coldplay07

THANK YOU!!!!! you made more sense than the TCs lame opinion. somebody should copy and paste this to every stupid thread like this that pops up

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.eclipsed4utoo

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

s0lid_snake111

The RSX does have access to all 512mb. 

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

I agree completely, I'm not sure I even want it anymore, and no planes, what the hell, if I wanted to recreate 9/11 I'd buy microsoft flight sim. And don't even get me started on an Eastern European immigrant as the lead protagonist (if your from the UK you'll know what I mean) 

[QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.s0lid_snake111

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

[QUOTE="shady_825"]

[QUOTE="psyum"] wrong, next gen is supposed to have better everything, cmon...i dont want a great looking game, with great graphics and awesome gameplay, but too small....u pay for next gen u want next gen..not last gen with better graphics...at least thats what i think...they could have done so much more with gta4...somebody said gta:sa was 2 gigs..i think it was bigger than that, but if 2 gigs is the case imagine 9 gigs(dvd) or 25 gigs(bluray)..so arent they falling a little bit short?Deihmos

That's exactly how I feel. Next-generation is supposed to be better in every way, not because someone said it should, but because it can.

So having a huge map is suppose to make a game better? Like I said the more content the more time and money it will take to make games. Developers have to work within their budgets. YEs the bluray can hold 25 gigs but doesn't mean developers when spend a couple million more to fill it up.

For a game like GTA a bigger map does make a better game. No obviously if they have glitches due to the bigger map or make you drive all over for no reason, it's no fun. But having missions in areas like 4 minutes away from where you started is hot. Having a smaller game is sort of a step backwards.  

[QUOTE="s0lid_snake111"][QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.eclipsed4utoo

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

I'd love to see a link stating the RSX has access to all the RAM. While it may be possible, I don't see why a dev would work around the dedicated GPU RAM and use some of the CPU's RAM.

Also, while the x360 DVD doesn't hit max speed all the time, it doesn't stay at the minimum either. I'd say it's fair to say that the average read speed of the x360's drive is faster than the PS3's 2x BR drive.

[QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="s0lid_snake111"][QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.LosDaddie

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

I'd love to see a link stating the RSX has access to all the RAM. While it may be possible, I don't see why a dev would work around the dedicated GPU RAM and use some of the CPU's RAM.

Also, while the x360 DVD doesn't hit max speed all the time, it doesn't stay at the minimum either. I'd say it's fair to say that the average read speed of the x360's drive is faster than the PS3's 2x BR drive.

Again with the flaming! I already said it twice. It's absolutely possible to make a game huge and very detailed. They could even make the entire world of the game a busy, New York City-like city and keep the detail they're claiming this one will have. I'm not saying they should have quantity over quality. I'm saying they could have quantity and quality and there's no reason for them not to. shady_825

You dont know anything about this game besides the few minor details that have been released. If everyone wasnt speculating all this negativity and augmenting every little negative detail, then rational individuals wouldnt be flaming. Seriously, we ALL HAVE NO IDEA what is in entirely in store for GTAIV. Some better npc interaction and more npc character depth would be much better than 6 more blocks and some empty field. As would some better physics. I loved GTAIII - GTASA and i thought they all were great games and i have faith rockstar north has a much better idea of what makes a good game than anyone on this forum.

I am extremely disappointed in Rockstar North, the developer of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV. As you know, the game is coming out in October for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. That means there will be one version on a DVD-9 disc, and another on a 25 GB Blu-Ray Disc. Yet somehow, Rockstar finds it reasonable to make the city in GTA IV smaller than that of San Andreas. This is what we in the world of logic would call bull****. They've made a statement that this new Liberty City would have more in it, but that's not nearly a good enough reason to actually make the city smaller.

There's no excuse for this. The Xbox 360 version will allow them 9GB of space, more than any 360 game has needed so far. GTA San Andreas was only a 5GB file and its world was bigger. Even if GTAIV has no empty space in it at all, ever, I know for a fact that Rockstar could fit an enormous world in the PS3 version. With 25 gigabytes, they could make Liberty City twice as big (possibly three times depending on their desired level of detail) as its 360 counterpart.

This is just another case of lazy a** developers making games for the money. I realize that the goal of running any company is to make money, but I feel that I still have the right to be upset about it, as do all gamers, since we're their paychecks. They're trying to make money, and we're trying to get the most out of our money. If you're going to make a game and call it "next-generation", go the extra mile with it! Do what most people would think is excessive or impossible. Don't just ride the success of your previous titles. Resistance promised 40 person, lag-less online multiplayer and to this day I have people watching me play it who can't believe it runs that well. Gears of War promised intense firefights and stunning graphics and that's what we got. Oblivion promised to be an all-inclusive, massive game with 100 hours of single player playtime at least, and it is. I'm not saying that GTAIV will be a bad game, but as I play it, I know I'll be constantly thinking about how much bigger and better it could have been. There are only maybe four next-generation titles that feel like they're beyond anything that we would've played last generation, and Rockstar should be doing all it can to get to that level, not making excuses because they want to get a hyped-up game out the door ASAP.

shady_825

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="s0lid_snake111"][QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.eclipsed4utoo

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

I'd love to see a link stating the RSX has access to all the RAM. While it may be possible, I don't see why a dev would work around the dedicated GPU RAM and use some of the CPU's RAM.

Also, while the x360 DVD doesn't hit max speed all the time, it doesn't stay at the minimum either. I'd say it's fair to say that the average read speed of the x360's drive is faster than the PS3's 2x BR drive.

That is exactly why most games load so much longer on the PS3. Check out Splinter cell and Fight night and you will see. Oblivion was able to have faster load time ecause they dumped the whole game on the hard drive.

[QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="s0lid_snake111"][QUOTE="eclipsed4utoo"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="punisher2k8"]more space on PS3's blu-ray means the game will look better though.LosDaddie

:lol:

No, it doesn't. The RSX only has 256MB of RAM to use and that isn't changing.

actually Losdaddie is right, ur wrong. M$ spent a extra billion dollars to raise the 360s ram to 512, thats why they joked about gearsofwar costing them a billion dollars, so games like gears wont be even possible on the ps3 with out downgrading it, and bluray also has slower running speed than dvds, and since every developer makes the game on the 360 then ports it (for ease of development) so, the bigger the game is, the ps3 version will suffer the more

I'd love to see a link stating the RSX has access to all the RAM. While it may be possible, I don't see why a dev would work around the dedicated GPU RAM and use some of the CPU's RAM.

Also, while the x360 DVD doesn't hit max speed all the time, it doesn't stay at the minimum either. I'd say it's fair to say that the average read speed of the x360's drive is faster than the PS3's 2x BR drive.

Never miss an opportunity to knock the PS3 do you?  

Never miss an opportunity to knock the PS3 do you?  

CyanX73

Do you have anything to contribute? Or are you just trying to troll?

FYI: I own a PS3. :)

my only gripe is.. why liberty city when vice city is so much cooler!?!?

WHYYYYY!!? 

  it's not the fact that a developer would work around the dedicated 256MB. hell, for all we know, 256MB dedicated for the GPU might be enough. It's the fact that if the developer chooses to use all 256MB at a given time, he has the other 256MB at his disposal if needed. Does that mean they will use it? I don't know. And I will agree that the average transfer speed of a 12x DVD drive is faster than a 2x blu-ray drive, it's not blazingly faster that would cause a huge difference. I will try to find the link.eclipsed4utoo

Yeah, I guess it is possible for a dev to use all the RSX's RAM and use some of the CPU RAM, but I don't know why a dev would go to such length. Working around the dedicated GPU RAM has gotta take a ton of work and I bet the game would take a performance hit as well.

IMO, dedicated RAM is the best.

[QUOTE="CyanX73"]

Never miss an opportunity to knock the PS3 do you?

LosDaddie

Do you have anything to contribute? Or are you just trying to troll?

FYI: I own a PS3. :)

It's just a broken record with you. Always harping on and on about the memory limitations of the hardware yet you never offer a link to support what you say.