Is the DVD9 format a hassle to compress all the data in such a "little&quot

[QUOTE="ChrisJ2004"]

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"] FF8 and FF9 looked greater then all the n64 games combined.Casual_Gamer_

Only because the background was pre-rendered 2D :D The battles looked atrocious even for its time and even worse when compard to the N64.

well they could put dragon age onto 2 dvd's if it was that problematic. I don't think they reduced the quality to fit in 6,8 GB of storage..

well they could put dragon age onto 2 dvd's if it was that problematic. I don't think they reduced the quality to fit in 6,8 GB of storage..

aia89

[QUOTE="aia89"]

well they could put dragon age onto 2 dvd's if it was that problematic. I don't think they reduced the quality to fit in 6,8 GB of storage..

Tyrant156

I've been thinking 8,5 GB is not enough anymore, maybe Ms should really adopt bluray in the future?

aia89

I've been thinking 8,5 GB is not enough anymore, maybe Ms should really adopt bluray in the future?

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="aia89"]

I've been thinking 8,5 GB is not enough anymore, maybe Ms should really adopt bluray in the future?

Casual_Gamer_

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] I rather see the $$ allocated to blu-ray go towards GPU and VRAM.ronvalencia

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"] lol i like how lots of ppl undermind the SIZE OF A GAME.Casual_Gamer_

dvd is on its way out the door. if xbox 360 is to last another 5 years, they'll rely on HDD installation, which leads me to think that the next xbox 360's will all have at least a 250 HDD.

[QUOTE="daveg1"]people dont realise that multiplat titles on both 360 and ps3 of the same game in every case where the ps3 version is twice the size of the 360 version..its due to the ps3 needing to have the same game facets loaded on the disc over and over due to memory constraints...Tyrant156

no disc touches blu-ray at this point. it remind me of the N64 vs PS1 era. The n64 was 64 bits, and the PS1 was 32, but with the advantage of disc space alone, many ps1 games looked better then n64 games even tho the hardware was suppose to be inferior. hahahahahahahaCasual_Gamer_

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"]no disc touches blu-ray at this point. it remind me of the N64 vs PS1 era. The n64 was 64 bits, and the PS1 was 32, but with the advantage of disc space alone, many ps1 games looked better then n64 games even tho the hardware was suppose to be inferior. hahahahahahahamythrol

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"]no disc touches blu-ray at this point. it remind me of the N64 vs PS1 era. The n64 was 64 bits, and the PS1 was 32, but with the advantage of disc space alone, many ps1 games looked better then n64 games even tho the hardware was suppose to be inferior. hahahahahahahaMartin_G_N

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"]no disc touches blu-ray at this point. it remind me of the N64 vs PS1 era. The n64 was 64 bits, and the PS1 was 32, but with the advantage of disc space alone, many ps1 games looked better then n64 games even tho the hardware was suppose to be inferior. hahahahahahahaMartin_G_N

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="aia89"]

well they could put dragon age onto 2 dvd's if it was that problematic. I don't think they reduced the quality to fit in 6,8 GB of storage..

aia89

They would have to pay royalties for that 2nd dvd...

Don't forget that a HD-DVD can hold 15GB.The XBOX 360 can use a HD-DVD. Two HD-DVD can hold 30GB.

I don't see any problem with that.And the DVD is more faster than BRay.

[QUOTE="aia89"][QUOTE="Tyrant156"] They would have to pay royalties for that 2nd dvd...Panosola

X360 can read HD-DVD?

[QUOTE="Panosola"][QUOTE="aia89"] ugh. dvd9 being obsolete= new xbox coming in the way?Frank2368

X360 can read HD-DVD?

[QUOTE="Frank2368"]

[QUOTE="Panosola"] Don't forget that a HD-DVD can hold 15GB.The XBOX 360 can use a HD-DVD. Two HD-DVD can hold 30GB.I don't see any problem with that.And the DVD is more faster that BRay.Panosola

X360 can read HD-DVD?

Hmmmm... link?

[QUOTE="Panosola"][QUOTE="aia89"] ugh. dvd9 being obsolete= new xbox coming in the way?Frank2368

X360 can read HD-DVD?

[QUOTE="Frank2368"]

[QUOTE="Panosola"] Don't forget that a HD-DVD can hold 15GB.The XBOX 360 can use a HD-DVD. Two HD-DVD can hold 30GB.I don't see any problem with that.And the DVD is more faster that BRay.Panosola

X360 can read HD-DVD?

i installed borderlands to my 360 hdd and even with game saves it clocks in at 3.3 gig... seriously, other than for movies why did we need a larger storage format?

Hehe, that's why I mentioned the horses in Oblivion(which is'nt exactly fast), Fallout however does'nt have anything. But both these games forces you to move slowly around the world, making it feel big. At first I thought the world in Fallout 3 was huge, but after a while it was'nt. Both these games are around 4-5GB and does'nt really fill up the disc. But they can only have 6.8GB, which is'nt really far away. Remember that the first games on the PS2 was around 500MB, the last games almost filled up a whole singlelayer DVD. I doubt developers can make games that are twice the size of GTA 4 or Fallout 3 with 6.8GB of data.Martin_G_N

i installed borderlands to my 360 hdd and even with game saves it clocks in at 3.3 gig... seriously, other than for movies why did we need a larger storage format?

Riverwolf007

imagine a 360 game that spans across 7 or 8 discs (roughly the size of a blu-ray), you guys would all be like "woah this game is massive"Casual_Gamer_

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i installed borderlands to my 360 hdd and even with game saves it clocks in at 3.3 gig... seriously, other than for movies why did we need a larger storage format?

SpruceCaboose

sure i realize it's a whole new ballgame these days and the inherent flaws of BD are not such a big deal as it was but still...

you and i did not need a new storage medium, sony did...

you can't (well maybe you can) imagine how frustrating it is to see people around here that actually believe a storage device that holds ones and zeros makes any difference to the quality of a game...

i find it hard to believe people are such suckers for marketing but we see it said every single time we are on here...

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"]imagine a 360 game that spans across 7 or 8 discs (roughly the size of a blu-ray), you guys would all be like "woah this game is massive"Frank2368

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"]imagine a 360 game that spans across 7 or 8 discs (roughly the size of a blu-ray), you guys would all be like "woah this game is massive"Frank2368

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

[QUOTE="Frank2368"]

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"]imagine a 360 game that spans across 7 or 8 discs (roughly the size of a blu-ray), you guys would all be like "woah this game is massive"Casual_Gamer_

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

It's an equation xD

On the left side of the equal sign it's the PS3 and on the right side it's the X360

imagine a 360 game that spans across 7 or 8 discs (roughly the size of a blu-ray), you guys would all be like "woah this game is massive"Casual_Gamer_

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="Frank2368"]

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

Casual_Gamer_

X360 doesn't have installing time. Optional installs.

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] But does Loading time + installing game = switching discs + loading time? 360 games load as well. Frank2368

X360 doesn't have installing time. Optional installs.

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"] so maybe we can put that in brackets and multiply it with the whole equation to cover the stress factor.SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"] so maybe we can put that in brackets and multiply it with the whole equation to cover the stress factor.Casual_Gamer_

[QUOTE="Frank2368"]

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"] or Loading Time + installing game = loading time + installing game + switch discs?Casual_Gamer_

X360 doesn't have installing time. Optional installs.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="Frank2368"]

Loading times+installing game = switching disks times

Casual_Gamer_

Now that's just a fanboyish statement.

Everyone knows that the 360's DVD drive is faster than the PS3's Blu-Ray drive, that's the entire reason behind PS3 games having mandatory installs while 360 games don't. Right now I could see the argument that Loading times + installing game = loading time + switching disc. But installing the game to the 360 improves more than just loading times. it has a direct increase to things like fps (frames per second).

The PS3 has yet to offer an option like this. The mandatory installs simply make the loading times EQUAL to the DVD9 drive load times.

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Stress?Casual_Gamer_

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"] you havent heard of stress in physics?SpruceCaboose

Most multiplatform devs don't even take advantage of the PS3 blu ray since 360 is usually the lead console. In some ways, the 360 is holding the PS3's full potential back. That's why 1st party PS3 games look so great because the dev takes full use of the blu ray disc. I think it's only a matter of time when devs will want to use more space and eventually switch lead to the PS3. Space is going to be a problem for the 360, a great example of this is DAO.

Most multiplatform devs don't even take advantage of the PS3 blu ray since 360 is usually the lead console. In some ways, the 360 is holding the PS3's full potential back. That's why 1st party PS3 games look so great because the dev takes full use of the blu ray disc. I think it's only a matter of time when devs will want to use more space and eventually switch lead to the PS3. Space is going to be a problem for the 360, a great example of this is DAO.

nZiFFLe

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

Most multiplatform devs don't even take advantage of the PS3 blu ray since 360 is usually the lead console. In some ways, the 360 is holding the PS3's full potential back. That's why 1st party PS3 games look so great because the dev takes full use of the blu ray disc. I think it's only a matter of time when devs will want to use more space and eventually switch lead to the PS3. Space is going to be a problem for the 360, a great example of this is DAO.

Casual_Gamer_

No, the consoles can only handle so much textures. With a 256MB of ram there's a limit.

BTW, 360 does have a superior GPU, and a inferior GPU, making PS3's and X360's output limit pretty much equal. PS3 does indeed has the advantage of Blu-Ray though.

[QUOTE="Casual_Gamer_"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

Most multiplatform devs don't even take advantage of the PS3 blu ray since 360 is usually the lead console. In some ways, the 360 is holding the PS3's full potential back. That's why 1st party PS3 games look so great because the dev takes full use of the blu ray disc. I think it's only a matter of time when devs will want to use more space and eventually switch lead to the PS3. Space is going to be a problem for the 360, a great example of this is DAO.

Frank2368

No, the consoles can only handle so much textures. With a 256MB of ram there's a limit.

BTW, 360 does have a superior GPU, and a inferior GPU, making PS3's and X360's output limit pretty much equal. PS3 does indeed has the advantage of Blu-Ray though.

people dont realise that multiplat titles on both 360 and ps3 of the same game in every case where the ps3 version is twice the size of the 360 version..its due to the ps3 needing to have the same game facets loaded on the disc over and over due to memory constraints...daveg1

Now if it is so good for games as cows have claimed then why the work arounds huh? Go ahead and jamb all the uncompressed content you want on it and it will still only have the same 256megs of ram on the GPU side to work with. Bottom line is that the reason you are seeing lots of gigs used on the BR's is because of 1.slow drive speeds thus repeated data 2.uncompressed audio which only does very few any good anyhow.

no disc touches blu-ray at this point. it remind me of the N64 vs PS1 era. The n64 was 64 bits, and the PS1 was 32, but with the advantage of disc space alone, many ps1 games looked better then n64 games even tho the hardware was suppose to be inferior. hahahahahahahaCasual_Gamer_

The best N64 games looked alot better than the best PS1 games. The only advantage PS1 had over the N64 was that the PS1s CDs allowed games to have real music and FMV cutscenes.