Blu ray is not needed? then explain this?

But what your considering to be "goodness" seems to have more to do with graphics and less with gaming. More content, like levels, maps etc...., are GREAT and appreciated but there can be a TON of content without ever needing to use blu ray; but because of this current, and quickly dissapearing, unreasonable focus on graphics we constantly need more and more space to accomadate what we THINK is good visuals when in reality GREAT grapihcs can be achieved with a DVD. Better graphics dont garuntee a better gaming experience; they just garuntee that the gaming experience (good or bad) is going to be very purty to look on when you eventually pause the game to actually notice those graphics.

The "Goodness" , i would argue, comes from the gameplay.....and gameplay doesnt take up much space let alone enough to require a blu ray drive. Since gameplay is the interaction between the player and the environment provided by the developer what deterimines its quality is the concept, design and implementation of those in game dynamics and how the player accesses it (controls).

When it comes to providing GREAT gameplay experiences, content (levels, means of implementing and interacting with the gameplay dynamics and not just simply the virtual SPACE the game provides you), and interaction the Blu-Ray technology, at this point in time, is simply not NEEDED to provide those things.........the only thing having a blu-ray player does is INCREASE THE PRICE of the gaming machine its installed into.

If the PS3 didnt have that drive i think it wouldnt be in the terrible position it is now because of its RIDICULOUS price tag. Gamers know that more space does not equal better games.......it just garuntees that more stuff can be crammed into the disc.

But more specifically about the streaming content thing; the blu ray player in the ps3 is actually SLOWER when it comes to attaining information from the disc than a standard dvd player. So how is it supposed to effectively stream such high res textures fast enough so that the player wouldnt see the actual textures loading? Perhaps if sony waited to implement blu ray in the NEXT gen, not this one, its read speed would be better and might preemptively avoid this question. Now, of course, it could be that its just fast enough to do what Carmack is describing...i dont know. But the point is that the technology could have been better implemented (mainly because in the future there would actually be a NEED to have it as opposed to now) if it were introduced at a time where it would actually be both neccessary and cheap enough to implement such that the gamer wouldnt have to pay an extra $200-$300 for it.

MaTT2011

The price tag for the Playstation 3 is not ridiculous. The standalone, hi-def movie player for the Xbox 360 costs $200. This, of course, does not account for Xbox Live Gold fees, the 40 gigabytes of hard drive space you're not getting, USB ports, an HDMI port, wi-fi, and rechargeable batteries. Still, it makes the point rather clear: the Playstation 3 is priced reasonably, and Microsoft is inclined to agree (more or less....actually, more, seeing as achieving the same feature set as the Playstation 3 on the Xbox 360 would require substantially MORE money than the Playstation 3 costs).

I do not know HOW Uncharted Drake's Fortune streams content from both the Blu Ray drive and the Hard disc, but, I do know that there are no load screens. If you want to call up Naughty Dog and ask them, feel free, but I'm just going on what I know, and what I know is what Naughty Dog told me last.

At any rate, spare me the cost-benefit analysis because I've seen plenty of it and I'm quite assured that the Playstation 3 is worth its cost relative to the other options. The Blu Ray drive is high quality and is having both a performance (Drake's Fortune) and content (Lair, Heavenly Sword, Resistance, Metal Gear Solid) yield that is substantial and inarguable. While there might have been a better time to implement it, there is no better option (and fiscally, it really was the best time for Sony, so why argue the point from the consumer's perspective? You only have choices, you do not have what-ifs). The Blu Ray drive offers a technological advantage.

Further, you define gameplay as "interaction between the player and environment." Would you then agree that the environment is integral in that interaction? I would argue yes. I would also argue that enhancing the environment gives a greater yield in terms of interactions. Essentially, you have more environment, with greater depth, greater expansiveness, and a wider degree of content with which to interact and to "probe," or explore.

That, in addition to being pretty.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"][QUOTE="Sooshy"]

Redfingers:

It's not that I don't think your opinion is justified, but like it or not, your individual opinion doesn't matter as much as EGM's, GameSpot's, and all the people that bought Gears and not Resistance. It sold better, and it was critically received as being a better made game.

I'm not going to argue with you about what you think is going to stomp Gears or whatever in the future, because it's pointless. You don't know what's going to be better anymore than I do.

My argument is that more doesn't equal better. Gears of War proved this last holiday season.

Sooshy

Resistance has sold over 1 mil., Gears, over 3 mil. There are 3x the number of 360's in people's homes as there are ps3s, so Gears sold 3x as much as Resistance. Shocker!

I'll answer for him. That question is unanswerable. It's simply a funny observation that explains that sales figures are not apples to apples, but apples to oranges.

[QUOTE="Sooshy"]

Redfingers:

It's not that I don't think your opinion is justified, but like it or not, your individual opinion doesn't matter as much as EGM's, GameSpot's, and all the people that bought Gears and not Resistance. It sold better, and it was critically received as being a better made game.

I'm not going to argue with you about what you think is going to stomp Gears or whatever in the future, because it's pointless. You don't know what's going to be better anymore than I do.

My argument is that more doesn't equal better. Gears of War proved this last holiday season.

Redfingers

But does the fact that it was received as being a better game somehow make the claim "less equals more" justified? Does that support that claim at all? I don't see the correlation at all.

I often see complaints that Gears of War was too short, often from people who own the game and played it on their Xbox 360s. Would you then argue with me that the shortness of the game is a weak point, or would you continue to say that it is a strong point? I think that instead of the shortness of the game and its other inadequacies (which I've pointed out, and which are true, whether a publication chooses to expound upon it or not) supporting your premise, they in fact refute it.

I'm not saying that it is a bad game (even though I do, in fact, think that it is a not very good game...I understand this is contrary to general opinion and am willing to concede this point), but I do believe that it has a number of shortcomings, one of which being shortness, lack of content, and a relatively restrained number of particle effects, character models onscreen, and individual physics and AI calculations, along with somewhat limited draw distances. If these issues could be resolved, I do believe that would be the ultimate game. I do believe that that would supercede Gears in the memory of those who play games forever, in review scores, general reception, and sales (assuming a large installed base, good marketing, etcetera).

You can't just look at a game and say the single player is short, therefore it is bad. It depends on the story, genre, and everything else. I'd take an awesome 10 hours over a meh 20 hours any day of the week. That's just me, though.

You made it clear that you don't care for Gears, and I'm not trying to change your mind about it.

20 GB of uncrompressed data, once compressed it wont be anywhere near that.

Blu-ray is a nice feature for devs so they dont have to worry at all about space but overall for the consumer it does nothing for us game wise. We do not need it right now but we may after this generation is done depending on if tech allows for more usefull compression or not.

:roll: blu-ray is not needed

period

wavebrid

DVD and CD are not needed. Lets use a Zip Disk for Game!!

I never said "less equals more", so there is no need for me to discuss this.

You can't just look at a game and say the single player is short, therefore it is bad. It depends on the story, genre, and everything else. I'd take an awesome 10 hours over a meh 20 hours any day of the week. That's just me, though.

You made it clear that you don't care for Gears, and I'm not trying to change your mind about it.

Sooshy

So, then. Do you agree or disagree that the game has shortcomings? Do you think that it is bulletproof?

It is good that you agree that less does not equal more. Do you think that Gears of War could be better? How could it improve? Are videogames like movies, in that there is a specific sweet spot in length, or is more of a good thing always good?

Personally, I think that more of a good thing is always good. People log hundreds of hours onto Xbox Live on their favorite games and relish new content. People love roaming through 100 hour games like Oblivion. Personally, I think that Oblivion is a chore...but for those that think that it is fun to begin with, why would you turn down 100 hours of it? Does anyone ever turn down an expansion pack (assuming its resonably priced) for their favorite game?

20 GB of uncrompressed data, once compressed it wont be anywhere near that.

Blu-ray is a nice feature for devs so they dont have to worry at all about space but overall for the consumer it does nothing for us game wise. We do not need it right now but we may after this generation is done depending on if tech allows for more usefull compression or not.

justforlotr2004

The 20 gigabyte megatextures that John Carmack was referring to will be stored in the hard drive and streamed in segments as needed.

Also, the statement "it does nothing for us game wise" is false, according to Naughty Dog, Factor Five, Insomniac, and Hideo Kojima.

[QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

20 GB of uncrompressed data, once compressed it wont be anywhere near that.

Blu-ray is a nice feature for devs so they dont have to worry at all about space but overall for the consumer it does nothing for us game wise. We do not need it right now but we may after this generation is done depending on if tech allows for more usefull compression or not.

Redfingers

The 20 gigabyte megatextures that John Carmack was referring to will be stored in the hard drive and streamed in segments as needed.

Also, the statement "it does nothing for us game wise" is false, according to Naughty Dog, Factor Five, Insomniac, and Hideo Kojima.

My statment is not false, as I said its good for DEVELOPERS but does nothing for US (The gamers) game wise. Resistance could be made on the 360 or PC on 1 disc and most likely the others can also. The only game that would even effect us game wise would be a game like GTA if they couldnt fit everything on one disc so they had to cut stuff out, but no wide open game developer has said anything about it yet. Games like MGS4, Resistance, Lair, and Uncharted would be just fine on 2 discs since they are linear and could be split apart.

So no I was not making a flase statment at all.

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

gameruk2010

Are you honestly comparing mere mortals to John Carmack? Repent for your end is nigh.

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

gameruk2010

It was a tech demo running on a PC. No way in hell the PS3 uses even a fraction of that amount. Especially when it has less then 400MB of RAM available for textures. That was probably running on a PC with dual G80's and 4 GB or ram.

[QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

TOAO_Cyrus1

It was a tech demo running on a PC. No way in hell the PS3 uses even a fraction of that amount. Especiall when it has less then 400MB of RAM available for textures. That was probably running on a PC with dual G80's and 4 GB or ram.

Exactly. If you think the engine Carmack is building for future PC games is going to run on hardware that wasn't all that great back in 2006 your crazy (both 360 and PS3 don't have DX10 cards and only 512 MB of RAM). Cryengine 2 is coming out this year and I doubt current gen consoles will be able to run that engine, much less this one.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

Sir_Graham

It was a tech demo running on a PC. No way in hell the PS3 uses even a fraction of that amount. Especiall when it has less then 400MB of RAM available for textures. That was probably running on a PC with dual G80's and 4 GB or ram.

Exactly. If you think the engine Carmack is building for future PC games is going to run on hardware that wasn't all that great back in 2006 your crazy (both 360 and PS3 don't have DX10 cards and only 512 MB of RAM). Cryengine 2 is coming out this year and I doubt current gen consoles will be able to run that engine, much less this one.

This engine and the CryTek 2 engine will defidentally run on the 360 and PS3 but not close to the graphical level shown in that tech demo or in Crysis. Engines are built to scale across a huge range of hardware.

[QUOTE="Sooshy"]

I never said "less equals more", so there is no need for me to discuss this.

You can't just look at a game and say the single player is short, therefore it is bad. It depends on the story, genre, and everything else. I'd take an awesome 10 hours over a meh 20 hours any day of the week. That's just me, though.

You made it clear that you don't care for Gears, and I'm not trying to change your mind about it.

Redfingers

So, then. Do you agree or disagree that the game has shortcomings? Do you think that it is bulletproof?

It is good that you agree that less does not equal more. Do you think that Gears of War could be better? How could it improve? Are videogames like movies, in that there is a specific sweet spot in length, or is more of a good thing always good?

Personally, I think that more of a good thing is always good. People log hundreds of hours onto Xbox Live on their favorite games and relish new content. People love roaming through 100 hour games like Oblivion. Personally, I think that Oblivion is a chore...but for those that think that it is fun to begin with, why would you turn down 100 hours of it? Does anyone ever turn down an expansion pack (assuming its resonably priced) for their favorite game?

I think the sweet spot in games depends on the genre, and even then the range is a lot more broad than in a movie. Then of course, you have special cases like WoW, which can be played forever.

I personally think that more of a good thing is good, as long as it makes sense for what you're dealing with. Bethesda made good design choices with Oblivion. Developers just have to know what their limitations are when making a game. I mean, if someone made a game where the coolest part was a boss fight in which you fight a giant dragon, then that is a really cool, memorable moment. If you make a 20 hour game, and every enemey you fight is that giant dragon then you're going to lose a lot of the coolness it would have as just a boss, you know?

I just think you can't go to extremes and say "less is more" or "more is more". Sometimes one thing works out, and sometimes something else does.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

Sir_Graham

It was a tech demo running on a PC. No way in hell the PS3 uses even a fraction of that amount. Especiall when it has less then 400MB of RAM available for textures. That was probably running on a PC with dual G80's and 4 GB or ram.

Exactly. If you think the engine Carmack is building for future PC games is going to run on hardware that wasn't all that great back in 2006 your crazy (both 360 and PS3 don't have DX10 cards and only 512 MB of RAM). Cryengine 2 is coming out this year and I doubt current gen consoles will be able to run that engine, much less this one.

If you watched the gametrailers link he said the same exact code is going to be running on PS3 and 360 in E3. As we learned with haze systems are now able to run graphics almost as good computers. Its just that not the whole world will be running at the same time.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

20 GB of uncrompressed data, once compressed it wont be anywhere near that.

Blu-ray is a nice feature for devs so they dont have to worry at all about space but overall for the consumer it does nothing for us game wise. We do not need it right now but we may after this generation is done depending on if tech allows for more usefull compression or not.

justforlotr2004

The 20 gigabyte megatextures that John Carmack was referring to will be stored in the hard drive and streamed in segments as needed.

Also, the statement "it does nothing for us game wise" is false, according to Naughty Dog, Factor Five, Insomniac, and Hideo Kojima.

My statment is not false, as I said its good for DEVELOPERS but does nothing for US (The gamers) game wise. Resistance could be made on the 360 or PC on 1 disc and most likely the others can also. The only game that would even effect us game wise would be a game like GTA if they couldnt fit everything on one disc so they had to cut stuff out, but no wide open game developer has said anything about it yet. Games like MGS4, Resistance, Lair, and Uncharted would be just fine on 2 discs since they are linear and could be split apart.

So no I was not making a flase statment at all.

Yes, you were. Resistance currently takes up 17 gigabytes on the Blu Ray disc. Heavenly Sword, Lair, and Metal Gear Solid 4 also exceed the capacity of a DVD. Metal Gear Solid 4 and Resistance both include online multiplayer.

To quote Naughty Dog, "Uncharted Drake's Fortune is taking advantage of the Blu Ray drive [...] the Blu Ray drive is necessary [...] not even the demo will fit on a DVD."

Not even the demo will fit on a DVD.

One level in Lair takes up 4 gigabytes. Exactly how could that fit on one disc? How could the 17 gigabytes in Resistance: Fall of Man (according to a figure taken from Gametrailers) be compressed to fit on a DVD-9 with a little over 7 (usable) gigabytes?

I could talk about the gaming applications all day if I wanted to. Streaming data provides a performance advantage, capacity provides a content advantage, and it all comes on one Blu Ray DVD.

That engine isn't going to be for this generation of consoles. The engine that is targeted at this generation of consoles is UE3 and plenty of games that are only a single-DVD use this engine e.g. Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, Bioshock, UT3, Gears of War ect.Sir_Graham

He already has a game in the works for both PS3 and XBox 360.

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

TOAO_Cyrus1

It was a tech demo running on a PC. No way in hell the PS3 uses even a fraction of that amount. Especiall when it has less then 400MB of RAM available for textures. That was probably running on a PC with dual G80's and 4 GB or ram.

Exactly. If you think the engine Carmack is building for future PC games is going to run on hardware that wasn't all that great back in 2006 your crazy (both 360 and PS3 don't have DX10 cards and only 512 MB of RAM). Cryengine 2 is coming out this year and I doubt current gen consoles will be able to run that engine, much less this one.

This engine and the CryTek 2 engine will defidentally run on the 360 and PS3 but not close to the graphical level shown in that tech demo or in Crysis. Engines are built to scale across a huge range of hardware.

True but the cryengine 2 isn't designed with consoles in mind, so I don't think anyone would bother because an engine that is designed to work well on them will look better than the CE2 at low detail. I watched the video and this engine does appear to be designed with current gen consoles in mind. It's looks as if it's using mega texture and other D3 like technology rather than anything that is going to be better than the tech CE2 has.

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"]That engine isn't going to be for this generation of consoles. The engine that is targeted at this generation of consoles is UE3 and plenty of games that are only a single-DVD use this engine e.g. Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, Bioshock, UT3, Gears of War ect.Redfingers

He already has a game in the works for both PS3 and XBox 360.

Yeah I know but I had decided that this was a new engine rather than a new showing of technology that isn't very new and is being used in Quake Wars before I watched the video :)

[QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

downPlayDemon

Are you honestly comparing mere mortals to John Carmack? Repent for your end is nigh.

You know back when this vid came out Cows were dissing the immortal John Carmack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

[QUOTE="OldParr"]

well after gears i dont see why is necessary and creating stuff like that will indicate more money and tons of time.maybe bioshock will change ur mind

anshuk20002

i guess blu ray is for the super epic games that are long. gears single player is short.

If you think gears single player is short because of disk space then you are wrong, for developers a bigger problem in game development is time and money.....not storage space.

[QUOTE="OldParr"]

well after gears i dont see why is necessary and creating stuff like that will indicate more money and tons of time.maybe bioshock will change ur mind

anshuk20002

i guess blu ray is for the super epic games that are long. gears single player is short.

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

gameruk2010

Actually watch it through? They're going to run it on the PC 360 and Macs too. Obviously none of those platforms are using blu-ray yet...hmmmm....odd

[QUOTE="downPlayDemon"][QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

waynehead895

Are you honestly comparing mere mortals to John Carmack? Repent for your end is nigh.

You know back when this vid came out Cows were dissing the immortal John Carmack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

Probably because those comments have fueled what Xbox 360 fans have said about the PS3 since the words were uttered. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing it.

Plus, while time has substantiated to some degree what he had to say, he said that the Playstation 3 is essentially "twice as hard" to work with as the general purpose processor of the Xbox 360. He also said that the Playstation 3 will never achieve its peak performance. This has created a kind of illustration that everyone has in their minds right now, that there's a bunch of developers shackled to eachother striving for some unattainable level of performance that will never quite measure up to the Xbox 360 developer's yield.

He said it in good humor at the time and probably thought he was being extremely forward and stepping out on a branch. Notice how he gives Sony consolations "highest theoretical performance" "which is probably what they wanted" "position of market dominance over Microsoft"....

Yes, it is true that the Playstation 3 is difficult to capitalize on, but I feel like he pegged it unfairly for being a fruitless endeavor. He never made it clear that for all the striving, whether those developers would actually achieve the theoretical performance, or at least meet the level of expectation for the platform. We're seeing today that the Playstation 3 is getting some absolutely awesome exclusive games and it truly is seizing on its potential to some degree. Still, it irritates me that he had to unwittingly shape the debate like that. I appreciate that he still wants to develop for the platform, though, and I'll probably buy both Quake Wars and this new IP for the Playstation 3 when they release.

[QUOTE="anshuk20002"][QUOTE="OldParr"]

well after gears i dont see why is necessary and creating stuff like that will indicate more money and tons of time.maybe bioshock will change ur mind

michael098

i guess blu ray is for the super epic games that are long. gears single player is short.

If you think gears single player is short because of disk space then you are wrong, for developers a bigger problem in game development is time and money.....not storage space.

Mass Effect uses the same engine as Gears and it will be many, many hours in length, as will Lost Odyssey. They are RPGs afterall and Gears really isn't that short for it's genre. So he could not be more wrong.

[QUOTE="anshuk20002"][QUOTE="OldParr"]

well after gears i dont see why is necessary and creating stuff like that will indicate more money and tons of time.maybe bioshock will change ur mind

High_Fly

i guess blu ray is for the super epic games that are long. gears single player is short.

No, Oblivion fits on a DVD-9.

[QUOTE="gameruk2010"]

John Carmack is showing off id's secret new game engine. The demonstration showcased an "insanely detailed world" made up of 20GB of textures.

http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=72333

O_Lineman17

Actually watch it through? They're going to run it on the PC 360 and Macs too. Obviously none of those platforms are using blu-ray yet...hmmmm....odd

Even with 20 gigs of textures Ps3 only has 256 - 512 mb of ram(and 96 mb is always taken my ps3 s OS) So there is 416 mb left for everything. Sound still takes alot, and all other stuff as well. So even ps3 has Blu Ray it has very limited ram and would never be able to run a game with a single scine with 20 gigs of textures.

/Thread.

The quality of the game is notdependant on the length. It is dependant on the content, which does not directly effect the length. An example of the advantages of blu-ray is MGS4, and I'm not talking about game length or high-def textures. The game's predessesor, MGS3, was full of secret radio conversations that expanded on the story. The depth of knowlegde you could gain just by calling the characters was totally optional. if you wanted to hear what they all had to say, you could listen to dozens of individual dialogue pieces. but you had the choice to not listen to any extra stuff and just get on with the game in a shorter amount of time. the voicework in that game took up a lot of space on the disk, the MGS3 DVD is totally filled, Kojima said this two years ago in an EGM interview. MGS4 is most likely going to have dozens of dialogue pieces as well, many more than it's predessesor. This is optional stuff that gamers can choose to experience, and the length of their play will vary. the dialogue was one of the things that gave MGS it's level of immersion. that is quality, quality from blu-ray.

and lets not forget the high quality, uncompressed 7.1 surround sound that can be fitted on blu-ray disks. face it, sound is half of the game experience. music, sound effects, dialogue.

the MGS3 DVD is totally filled, Kojima said this two years ago in an EGM interview. Mordred19

MGS 3 is about 3.5 GB in size :|

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

the MGS3 DVD is totally filled, Kojima said this two years ago in an EGM interview. Sir_Graham

MGS 3 is about 3.5 GB in size :|

5 gigs, giggidy. Kojima is a disk-filler, he needs his space.

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

the MGS3 DVD is totally filled, Kojima said this two years ago in an EGM interview. Sir_Graham

MGS 3 is about 3.5 GB in size :|

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

the MGS3 DVD is totally filled, Kojima said this two years ago in an EGM interview. makingmusic476

MGS 3 is about 3.5 GB in size :|

was it a DVD9? For some reason, I thought PS2 DVDs at the time were 5gigs max. But still, filling up the whole disk, whether it's five or nine shows the developers commitment to quality.

[QUOTE="Sir_Graham"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

the MGS3 DVD is totally filled, Kojima said this two years ago in an EGM interview. makingmusic476

MGS 3 is about 3.5 GB in size :|

I'm talking about the original version of the game. I don't have subsistance and can't check it's size on my PC.

ZOMG! Is this the part where I'm supposed to pee my pants?groovdafied

I've already soiled mine! ID + 20gig textures + blu-ray = GODLIKE

The Wii and 360 gonna have to sit this one out... HOLLA AT Ya BOY!!!

I just don't get it... if oblivion can fit on ONE dvd disk then why do we need blu ray YET?qead

If I hear that argument ONE more time, im going on a 360 fanboy killing rampage. It fitted on a DVD because it had repetative textures, meshes, voices and sounds. Now STFU!

I just don't get it... if oblivion can fit on ONE dvd disk then why do we need blu ray YET?qead

Games like this. but then again... They did say it has 20GB of textures, but that is NOT the size AFTER compression.

He said the technology would work on the "PS3 and the 360"!!!!! Point proven!

I just don't get it... if oblivion can fit on ONE dvd disk then why do we need blu ray YET?qead

People who say blu-ray is not needed isnt preparing for the futur properly. Even now blu-ray is very usefull to developers. Theyve stated it

GarchomPro

[QUOTE="GarchomPro"]

People who say blu-ray is not needed isnt preparing for the futur properly. Even now blu-ray is very usefull to developers. Theyve stated it

mavven

Yeah quote someone for truth that cant even spell.

Teh Smartz FTW