Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Multiple disks only for RPG's
This topic is locked from further discussion.
RE4 k?Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?\
therealmcc0y
Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
therealmcc0y
[QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Ramadear
Blu-Ray doesn't matter, so you fail.
Because?
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.
Killzone 2 develepors and many other developers have said, this game is not possible without blu ray. Its only been a year into PS3's life and its already showing that it can do more things than the 360
The future is bright for PS3 owners
The only games that would even have a mild want for Blu Ray are games that are very heavy on CG cutscenes. So MGS4 comes under than, and a few JRPG's come under that.Newnab
There has never been a CG cutscene in MGS, its all real time.
And look at Killzone 2, its used up 15 gbs already in this early pre alpha stage, does it use CG? nooooooooo its all real time
The only games that would even have a mild want for Blu Ray are games that are very heavy on CG cutscenes. So MGS4 comes under than, and a few JRPG's come under that.Newnab
you obviously dont know what CG is.
[QUOTE="Newnab"]The only games that would even have a mild want for Blu Ray are games that are very heavy on CG cutscenes. So MGS4 comes under than, and a few JRPG's come under that.humber_matus
Exactly what I was thinking.
you obviously dont know what CG is.
The only games that would even have a mild want for Blu Ray are games that are very heavy on CG cutscenes. So MGS4 comes under than, and a few JRPG's come under that.NewnabWOW, WOW, WOW! Who ever said that MGS uses CG cutscenes? All that stuff is R.E.A.L.T.I.M.E. bro, you can even Wiki that!
The only games that would even have a mild want for Blu Ray are games that are very heavy on CG cutscenes. So MGS4 comes under than, and a few JRPG's come under that.Newnab
MGS4's cutscenes are all in real-time, so they do not hog space like Lost Odyssey's CG cutscenes.
In any case, there will be a lot of data on MGS4 because the game will take place in 3 regions of the world, and along with the high-quality sound and boatloads of dialogue I think the game would exceed a DVD9.
[QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Nightflash28
[QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Ramadear
Blu-Ray doesn't matter, so you fail.
Because?
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.
I know your trying to justify that PS3 is good because of Blu Ray, but I'm going to be real with you. Its a pathetic thing to hype up. Since when do you switch discs every 5mins? You don't. I never had a problem with multiple discs and I'm sure a lot of other people do not. But I'm going to bring something else to the table, why hype up disc capacity(like it matters) when a 360 game can be have files installed on the HDD uncompressed?
[QUOTE="Newnab"]The only games that would even have a mild want for Blu Ray are games that are very heavy on CG cutscenes. So MGS4 comes under than, and a few JRPG's come under that.fuzzysquash
MGS4's cutscenes are all in real-time, so they do not hog space like Lost Odyssey's CG cutscenes.
In any case, there will be a lot of data on MGS4 because the game will take place in 3 regions of the world, and along with the high-quality sound and boatloads of dialogue I think the game would exceed a DVD9.
And, oh yeah, maybe some game here and there. Thanks for the consolation, Fuzzy. I hope it isn't ALL audio/region data, especially considering Insomniac said that even if you cut out all their region data, you'd still well exceed the capacity of a DVD-9....
Anyway, TC, news for you: Rage, an action game in development by Id Games will ship on one Blu Ray and two DVDs for all other platforms, including the Xbox 360. So the "only teh RPGs," "only teh CGI, audio" argument has already been defused.
Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
therealmcc0y
iD's new game Rage (which is a sort of FPS/racing mix) will be on two discs for 360 and one disc for PS3.
[QUOTE="Nightflash28"][QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Ramadear
[QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Ramadear
Blu-Ray doesn't matter, so you fail.
Because?
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.
I know your trying to justify that PS3 is good because of Blu Ray, but I'm going to be real with you. Its a pathetic thing to hype up. Since when do you switch discs every 5mins? You don't. I never had a problem with multiple discs and I'm sure a lot of other people do not. But I'm going to bring something else to the table, why hype up disc capacity(like it matters) when a 360 game can be have files installed on the HDD uncompressed?
Maybe we're hyping up disc capacity because there's a little thing called the "Core Xbox 360" that totally defuses your point. I know of plenty of people walking into Gamestop asking for used Core Xbox 360s (only to be talked out of it by the sales rep). I also know several people who own Core Xbox 360s.
Microsoft is now trying hard to defuse this situation, but like it or not, they're forced to marginalize any genres they allow to require the HDD. It's space and practice reserved for MMOs currently. Given an MMO is online anyway, I believe that requires the hard drive in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong). That, and a Gold subscription and monthly subscription fees. Keep in mind that many PS3 MMOs (confirmed: The Agency) are going to be free to play online.
The Playstation 3 is the one with the standard hard drive, and given that developers have complained about the situation on the 360 (Rockstar Games on GTA IV) and praised the PS3 for their standard hard drive (Socom, Naughty Dog), and said their games required it, why would you possibly bring it up like it's some mighty, unsung advantage?
Additionally, you've got the core (no memory), the Premium (20 gigs), and the Elite (120 gigs), versus the 20 g PS3, 40 g PS3, 60 g PS3, and 80 g PS3. Keep in mind the most popular models for each platform are the 20 gig and the 60 gig respectively. Also, given the PS3 hard drive can be swapped with any 2.5" SATA drive of any capacity and I think it's fairly certain which platform has the "hard drive wildcard."
Also, keep in mind the only platform to currently release a full retail game via digital distribution is the Playstation 3. Versus the Xbox 360, which STILL has, what, a 256 MB file limit? Ultra compressed, the game Warhawk sits on the hard drive at 800 MB. When it is decompressed, it sits on main memory (I can't imagine how) when it is ready to be accessed. Given this, how can you give 360 the hard drive ticket?
Even free-roaming games have a plot. You don't split by the region--you split by the plot--and duplicate side plots as needed. FF7-9 taught us that technique.
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.Nightflash28
There's also the memory limitation you have to consider. The game, to be playable, has to fit in the memory, and trying to fit even 9GB of game gata on half a gig of memory without creating arbitrary boundaries is exceedingly difficult (as we saw in Lair).
I know your trying to justify that PS3 is good because of Blu Ray, but I'm going to be real with you. Its a pathetic thing to hype up. Since when do you switch discs every 5mins? You don't. I never had a problem with multiple discs and I'm sure a lot of other people do not. But I'm going to bring something else to the table, why hype up disc capacity(like it matters) when a 360 game can be have files installed on the HDD uncompressed?
developers can't install some parts of the games onto the harddrive. because they would excluded a a huge percent of gamers. the core system for example. and no you can't force this people to buy a hardrive. thats bad business.
[QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="Nightflash28"][QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
BobHipJames
[QUOTE="therealmcc0y"]Everyone knows the disk storage of the Blu Ray matters, but then lemmings say, I dont care just make it on 2 or more disks, but dont they only do the multiple disks with RPG's?
Ramadear
Blu-Ray doesn't matter, so you fail.
Because?
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.
I know your trying to justify that PS3 is good because of Blu Ray, but I'm going to be real with you. Its a pathetic thing to hype up. Since when do you switch discs every 5mins? You don't. I never had a problem with multiple discs and I'm sure a lot of other people do not. But I'm going to bring something else to the table, why hype up disc capacity(like it matters) when a 360 game can be have files installed on the HDD uncompressed?
Maybe we're hyping up disc capacity because there's a little thing called the "Core Xbox 360" that totally defuses your point. I know of plenty of people walking into Gamestop asking for used Core Xbox 360s (only to be talked out of it by the sales rep). I also know several people who own Core Xbox 360s.
Microsoft is now trying hard to defuse this situation, but like it or not, they're forced to marginalize any genres they allow to require the HDD. It's space and practice reserved for MMOs currently. Given an MMO is online anyway, I believe that requires the hard drive in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong). That, and a Gold subscription and monthly subscription fees. Keep in mind that many PS3 MMOs (confirmed: The Agency) are going to be free to play online.
The Playstation 3 is the one with the standard hard drive, and given that developers have complained about the situation on the 360 (Rockstar Games on GTA IV) and praised the PS3 for their standard hard drive (Socom, Naughty Dog), and said their games required it, why would you possibly bring it up like it's some mighty, unsung advantage?
Additionally, you've got the core (no memory), the Premium (20 gigs), and the Elite (120 gigs), versus the 20 g PS3, 40 g PS3, 60 g PS3, and 80 g PS3. Keep in mind the most popular models for each platform are the 20 gig and the 60 gig respectively. Also, given the PS3 hard drive can be swapped with any 2.5" SATA drive of any capacity and I think it's fairly certain which platform has the "hard drive wildcard."
Also, keep in mind the only platform to currently release a full retail game via digital distribution is the Playstation 3. Versus the Xbox 360, which STILL has, what, a 256 MB file limit? Ultra compressed, the game Warhawk sits on the hard drive at 800 MB. When it is decompressed, it sits on main memory (I can't imagine how) when it is ready to be accessed. Given this, how can you give 360 the hard drive ticket?
nice facts
[QUOTE="Nightflash28"]Even free-roaming games have a plot. You don't split by the region--you split by the plot--and duplicate side plots as needed. FF7-9 taught us that technique.
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.HuusAsking
There's also the memory limitation you have to consider. The game, to be playable, has to fit in the memory, and trying to fit even 9GB of game gata on half a gig of memory without creating arbitrary boundaries is exceedingly difficult (as we saw in Lair).
Pardon me, but what are you talking about? Lair was 25 gigabytes, multiple gigabytes per level, and ran as well as we could tell (granted, with a great amount of frame hitching) on the "split memory" of the PS3 256/256.
You don't place the entirety of the game data disc on your main memory, that wouldn't even make any sense. You draw information out of the game media or the data stored on the hard disc as needed onto main memory. Otherwise, would it make any sense that we can run a 25 GB game on a console with 256 MB XDR main memory? You're not playing the final level, with all its assets, on the first level....why would you think that?
Additionally, I'm almost entirely certain that I read a comment by someone whose played Blue Dragon or one of those Xbox 360 RPGs saying that you do in fact have to switch discs when you move into a specific territory or city.
If your Core 360 doesn't have a hard drive, add one! It's not like you're permanently locked out of any HDD-required game in future. The only HDD-required game at present is FF11, which is a persistent-content game and thus understandable.Maybe we're hyping up disc capacity because there's a little thing called the "Core Xbox 360" that totally defuses your point. I know of plenty of people walking into Gamestop asking for used Core Xbox 360s (only to be talked out of it by the sales rep). I also know several people who own Core Xbox 360s.
Microsoft is now trying hard to defuse this situation, but like it or not, they're forced to marginalize any genres they allow to require the HDD. It's space and practice reserved for MMOs currently. Given an MMO is online anyway, I believe that requires the hard drive in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong). That, and a Gold subscription and monthly subscription fees. Keep in mind that many PS3 MMOs (confirmed: The Agency) are going to be free to play online.
The Playstation 3 is the one with the standard hard drive, and given that developers have complained about the situation on the 360 (Rockstar Games on GTA IV) and praised the PS3 for their standard hard drive (Socom, Naughty Dog), and said their games required it, why would you possibly bring it up like it's some mighty, unsung advantage?
Additionally, you've got the core (no memory), the Premium (20 gigs), and the Elite (120 gigs), versus the 20 g PS3, 40 g PS3, 60 g PS3, and 80 g PS3. Keep in mind the most popular models for each platform are the 20 gig and the 60 gig respectively. Also, given the PS3 hard drive can be swapped with any 2.5" SATA drive of any capacity and I think it's fairly certain which platform has the "hard drive wildcard."
BobHipJames
And as for the PS3's HDD decision...are you sure you want computer-illiterate casuals being able to perform a job normally reserved for techheads, nerds, and computer shops? At least Microsoft's approach is as close to foolproof as can be expected. What I'd like to see is a third-party dev not allied with Sony in any way (Insomniac's chummy, and Naughty Dog is Sony-owned--Spin City, anyone?) go out and say the only way they could make their game at all was to require a hard drive. Bet you won't find one that's independent.
PS. You may want to research more about The Agency to find out just how they plan to keep MMO free. Servers cost money, and Sony is publicly-traded. Plus, in all of PC gaming, only one free MMO comes to mind (Guild Ward), and it isn't even really an MMO. Be prepared for MS Marketplace, Sony-style, as well as pay-to-play areas that moot the whole "free to play" idea.
Multidisc games are for JRPGs.
If Oblivion, plus the expansions can be fit onto a DVD and released into a GOTY edition, there is no problem.
-ReD45
We've been over this: Oblivion recycles huge numbers of assets.
Plus, Oblivion has no CG. Additionally, if an action game (Rage) can require multiple discs, whose to say that Oblivion is the be-all, end-all because it has the largest hour-count?
And Lair scored 4.5. Quoth GameSpot, "Beautiful disaster". I rest my case there. You can't fit the whole thing without compromises (we're talking single levels beyond the memory limitation), and because of our notion of "Uncanny Valley" the sore spots stick out more than the shiny ones. For example, Lair couldn't be done online because things can happen anywhere and everywhere on the map...at once.Pardon me, but what are you talking about? Lair was 25 gigabytes, multiple gigabytes per level, and ran as well as we could tell (granted, with a great amount of frame hitching) on the "split memory" of the PS3 256/256.
You don't place the entirety of the game data disc on your main memory, that wouldn't even make any sense. You draw information out of the game media or the data stored on the hard disc as needed onto main memory. Otherwise, would it make any sense that we can run a 25 GB game on a console with 256 MB XDR main memory? You're not playing the final level, with all its assets, on the first level....why would you think that?
Additionally, I'm almost entirely certain that I read a comment by someone whose played Blue Dragon or one of those Xbox 360 RPGs saying that you do in fact have to switch discs when you move into a specific territory or city.
BobHipJames
As for Blue Dragon, the question remains. Was moving to the new area driven by the plot? IOW, could you backtrack without changing discs?
[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]If your Core 360 doesn't have a hard drive, add one! It's not like you're permanently locked out of any HDD-required game in future. The only HDD-required game at present is FF11, which is a persistent-content game and thus understandable.Maybe we're hyping up disc capacity because there's a little thing called the "Core Xbox 360" that totally defuses your point. I know of plenty of people walking into Gamestop asking for used Core Xbox 360s (only to be talked out of it by the sales rep). I also know several people who own Core Xbox 360s.
Microsoft is now trying hard to defuse this situation, but like it or not, they're forced to marginalize any genres they allow to require the HDD. It's space and practice reserved for MMOs currently. Given an MMO is online anyway, I believe that requires the hard drive in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong). That, and a Gold subscription and monthly subscription fees. Keep in mind that many PS3 MMOs (confirmed: The Agency) are going to be free to play online.
The Playstation 3 is the one with the standard hard drive, and given that developers have complained about the situation on the 360 (Rockstar Games on GTA IV) and praised the PS3 for their standard hard drive (Socom, Naughty Dog), and said their games required it, why would you possibly bring it up like it's some mighty, unsung advantage?
Additionally, you've got the core (no memory), the Premium (20 gigs), and the Elite (120 gigs), versus the 20 g PS3, 40 g PS3, 60 g PS3, and 80 g PS3. Keep in mind the most popular models for each platform are the 20 gig and the 60 gig respectively. Also, given the PS3 hard drive can be swapped with any 2.5" SATA drive of any capacity and I think it's fairly certain which platform has the "hard drive wildcard."
HuusAsking
And as for the PS3's HDD decision...are you sure you want computer-illiterate casuals being able to perform a job normally reserved for techheads, nerds, and computer shops? At least Microsoft's approach is as close to foolproof as can be expected. What I'd like to see is a third-party dev not allied with Sony in any way (Insomniac's chummy, and Naughty Dog is Sony-owned--Spin City, anyone?) go out and say the only way they could make their game at all was to require a hard drive. Bet you won't find one that's independent.
PS. You may want to research more about The Agency to find out just how they plan to keep MMO free. Servers cost money, and Sony is publicly-traded. Plus, in all of PC gaming, only one free MMO comes to mind (Guild Ward), and it isn't even really an MMO.
I just said that Rockstar Games complained that it was an obstacle to get GTA IV running on the Xbox 360 with no hard drive. Done, and done, before you even commented.
I know of one free MMO that I played back in the day. It was.......HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE. HUGE. The way they supported the game was by selling "potato points," or something to buy stupid crap and accessories. Not only was there no cost of entry, there was no monthly fee. The game is called "Flyff." It's some dumb little fringe Asian game. I hated it. But like I said, it's absolutely huge. Lots of players.
Question: What's more difficult? Removing your 20 gig hard drive, buying an overpriced ($179) 120 gigabyte hard drive far over market value with less capacity than similarly priced hard drives (Newegg.com) and replacing it or...
Reading the PS3's hard drive replacement manual or any tutorial in any fringe area of the internet, popping out your old hard drive, replacing it with any 2.5" SATA drive you happen to have laying around, instantly increase the capacity of your console by using legitimate market value as opposed to some prohibitive licensing peripheral bullcrap.
In addition, you buy a 20 gig PS3, guess what? You've got 20 gigs. You buy a 60 gig PS3, guess what? You've got 60 gigs. I'm sitting pretty on, maybe 28-30 game demos, hundreds of videos and pictures, literally, and Warhawk with my 60 gigabyte console. That, and game saves and hard drive caches for games like NG:S and Rainbow Six Vegas. Do I need to expand my hard drive? What do you think? Nearly everyone that owns a PS3 owns one of these 60 gigabyte consoles.
Versus a core Xbox 360, where you literally have nothing. Want a used Xbox 360? Sorry, we don't sell them with the hard drive! Wanna know how many people I saw walk away from Gamestop with a sad look on their face after we told them that? The memory stick on the Xbox 360 is a waste of time. Given the 360 is the only console with a sandtrap SKU, I think you should watch out when referring to the most difficult to maintain console.
Oh, yeah, by the way, don't buy a used Xbox 360 because you don't get a manufacturer warranty. Oh yeah, if your 360 gets the red rings of death, call this number, deal with some Indian people who can hardly speak English, and are briefed beforehand not to help you out whenever possible, pay $100 and get a refund later (after the third warranty extension) for a refurbished console (MAKE SURE YOU KEEP YOUR HARD DRIVE!), etcetera, etcetera. I cannot count the pitfalls of buying and using an Xbox 360 using my two hands. It's a ridiculous situation.
As for techheads, nerds, let them add and subtract their 20 gig peripheral ($100) hard drives all they want (especially if they expect to use backwards compatibility), I don't see how they're doing anything differently than I am when I replace my PS3's hard drive.
[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]And Lair scored 4.5. Quoth GameSpot, "Beautiful disaster". I rest my case there. You can't fit the whole thing without compromises (we're talking single levels beyond the memory limitation), and because of our notion of "Uncanny Valley" the sore spots stick out more than the shiny ones. For example, Lair couldn't be done online because things can happen anywhere and everywhere on the map...at once.Pardon me, but what are you talking about? Lair was 25 gigabytes, multiple gigabytes per level, and ran as well as we could tell (granted, with a great amount of frame hitching) on the "split memory" of the PS3 256/256.
You don't place the entirety of the game data disc on your main memory, that wouldn't even make any sense. You draw information out of the game media or the data stored on the hard disc as needed onto main memory. Otherwise, would it make any sense that we can run a 25 GB game on a console with 256 MB XDR main memory? You're not playing the final level, with all its assets, on the first level....why would you think that?
Additionally, I'm almost entirely certain that I read a comment by someone whose played Blue Dragon or one of those Xbox 360 RPGs saying that you do in fact have to switch discs when you move into a specific territory or city.
HuusAsking
As for Blue Dragon, the question remains. Was moving to the new area driven by the plot? IOW, could you backtrack without changing discs?
Lair had multiple gigabyte levels (2-4?). And Killzone 2 has multiple gigabyte levels (quoth Guerilla: 2 gigabytes, we needeth Blu Ray). Killzone 2 is confirmed to have a beta, online multiplayer, and in all likelyhood (given the Game Informer preview), it will have online co-op.
Will compromises be made for online versus offline? Um, probably. How is the Xbox 360 resolving this problem again? Keep in mind the Xbox 360 cannot even play these levels offline in a cohesive singleplayer package on one disc, much less online.
As for Blue Dragon: No, not by the plot. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. Unfortunately, I haven't played the game. Unless you want to ask somebody or play the game yourself, I guess we're gonna have to leave it there.
[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]And Lair scored 4.5. Quoth GameSpot, "Beautiful disaster". I rest my case there. You can't fit the whole thing without compromises (we're talking single levels beyond the memory limitation), and because of our notion of "Uncanny Valley" the sore spots stick out more than the shiny ones. For example, Lair couldn't be done online because things can happen anywhere and everywhere on the map...at once.Pardon me, but what are you talking about? Lair was 25 gigabytes, multiple gigabytes per level, and ran as well as we could tell (granted, with a great amount of frame hitching) on the "split memory" of the PS3 256/256.
You don't place the entirety of the game data disc on your main memory, that wouldn't even make any sense. You draw information out of the game media or the data stored on the hard disc as needed onto main memory. Otherwise, would it make any sense that we can run a 25 GB game on a console with 256 MB XDR main memory? You're not playing the final level, with all its assets, on the first level....why would you think that?
Additionally, I'm almost entirely certain that I read a comment by someone whose played Blue Dragon or one of those Xbox 360 RPGs saying that you do in fact have to switch discs when you move into a specific territory or city.
HuusAsking
As for Blue Dragon, the question remains. Was moving to the new area driven by the plot? IOW, could you backtrack without changing discs?
I dunno, but could you backtrack in FF7? Yes you could and its 4 discs long. Oh noes!
[QUOTE="Nightflash28"]Even free-roaming games have a plot. You don't split by the region--you split by the plot--and duplicate side plots as needed. FF7-9 taught us that technique.
Didn't already many developers say that they're already bumping the max holding capacity of a DVD already?
What about future free-roaming games, packed with content and details that simply wouldn't fit on a regular DVD any more? Swap discs when you switch between areas?
Saying that having more space to store things on doesn't matter... well, that's kinda dumb.HuusAsking
There's also the memory limitation you have to consider. The game, to be playable, has to fit in the memory, and trying to fit even 9GB of game gata on half a gig of memory without creating arbitrary boundaries is exceedingly difficult (as we saw in Lair).
Question: How would one split Oblivion up by plot? Can you perhaps devise a road map for the developers should any issues ever come up?
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]And Lair scored 4.5. Quoth GameSpot, "Beautiful disaster". I rest my case there. You can't fit the whole thing without compromises (we're talking single levels beyond the memory limitation), and because of our notion of "Uncanny Valley" the sore spots stick out more than the shiny ones. For example, Lair couldn't be done online because things can happen anywhere and everywhere on the map...at once.Pardon me, but what are you talking about? Lair was 25 gigabytes, multiple gigabytes per level, and ran as well as we could tell (granted, with a great amount of frame hitching) on the "split memory" of the PS3 256/256.
You don't place the entirety of the game data disc on your main memory, that wouldn't even make any sense. You draw information out of the game media or the data stored on the hard disc as needed onto main memory. Otherwise, would it make any sense that we can run a 25 GB game on a console with 256 MB XDR main memory? You're not playing the final level, with all its assets, on the first level....why would you think that?
Additionally, I'm almost entirely certain that I read a comment by someone whose played Blue Dragon or one of those Xbox 360 RPGs saying that you do in fact have to switch discs when you move into a specific territory or city.
BobHipJames
As for Blue Dragon, the question remains. Was moving to the new area driven by the plot? IOW, could you backtrack without changing discs?
Lair had multiple gigabyte levels (2-4?). And Killzone 2 has multiple gigabyte levels (quoth Guerilla: 2 gigabytes, we needeth Blu Ray). Killzone 2 is confirmed to have a beta, online multiplayer, and in all likelyhood (given the Game Informer preview), it will have online co-op.
Will compromises be made for online versus offline? Um, probably. How is the Xbox 360 resolving this problem again? Keep in mind the Xbox 360 cannot even play these levels offline in a cohesive singleplayer package on one disc, much less online.
As for Blue Dragon: No, not by the plot. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. Unfortunately, I haven't played the game. Unless you want to ask somebody or play the game yourself, I guess we're gonna have to leave it there.
And Guerilla is in Sony's pocket (again, Spin City). 2GB levels online? Dream on. They don't even do that AFAIK on PCs right now, for the same reason. The whole level must be in memory online because actvity can be anywhere and everywhere. And how do we know it can't be done on the 360. GTA4 will be day-and-date and one disc, according to Rockstar North--and AFAIK with no real compromises, either.The former. Remember, casuals aren't computer-literate and may have trouble even following simple instructions. They like it turnkey easy. Microsoft's approach, though more expensive, is turnkey easy (pop it in, you're done). People will pay for easy, especially turnkey easy. Otherwise, every TV in the world would have hundred-button remote controls and the like.Question: What's more difficult? Removing your 20 gig hard drive, buying an overpriced ($179) 120 gigabyte hard drive far over market value with less capacity than similarly priced hard drives (Newegg.com) and replacing it or...
Reading the PS3's hard drive replacement manual or any tutorial in any fringe area of the internet, popping out your old hard drive, replacing it with any 2.5" SATA drive you happen to have laying around, instantly increase the capacity of your console by using legitimate market value as opposed to some prohibitive licensing peripheral bullcrap.
BobHipJames
[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]The former. Remember, casuals aren't computer-literate and may have trouble even following simple instructions. They like it turnkey easy. Microsoft's approach, though more expensive, is turnkey easy (pop it in, you're done). People will pay for easy, especially turnkey easy. Otherwise, every TV in the world would have hundred-button remote controls and the like.Question: What's more difficult? Removing your 20 gig hard drive, buying an overpriced ($179) 120 gigabyte hard drive far over market value with less capacity than similarly priced hard drives (Newegg.com) and replacing it or...
Reading the PS3's hard drive replacement manual or any tutorial in any fringe area of the internet, popping out your old hard drive, replacing it with any 2.5" SATA drive you happen to have laying around, instantly increase the capacity of your console by using legitimate market value as opposed to some prohibitive licensing peripheral bullcrap.
HuusAsking
Rofl. Okay, you enjoy.
Also: The former refers to the first selection. Given my question was "what's more difficult," I think your answer was not in line with your response given your position.
[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]And Lair scored 4.5. Quoth GameSpot, "Beautiful disaster". I rest my case there. You can't fit the whole thing without compromises (we're talking single levels beyond the memory limitation), and because of our notion of "Uncanny Valley" the sore spots stick out more than the shiny ones. For example, Lair couldn't be done online because things can happen anywhere and everywhere on the map...at once.Pardon me, but what are you talking about? Lair was 25 gigabytes, multiple gigabytes per level, and ran as well as we could tell (granted, with a great amount of frame hitching) on the "split memory" of the PS3 256/256.
You don't place the entirety of the game data disc on your main memory, that wouldn't even make any sense. You draw information out of the game media or the data stored on the hard disc as needed onto main memory. Otherwise, would it make any sense that we can run a 25 GB game on a console with 256 MB XDR main memory? You're not playing the final level, with all its assets, on the first level....why would you think that?
Additionally, I'm almost entirely certain that I read a comment by someone whose played Blue Dragon or one of those Xbox 360 RPGs saying that you do in fact have to switch discs when you move into a specific territory or city.
HuusAsking
As for Blue Dragon, the question remains. Was moving to the new area driven by the plot? IOW, could you backtrack without changing discs?
Lair had multiple gigabyte levels (2-4?). And Killzone 2 has multiple gigabyte levels (quoth Guerilla: 2 gigabytes, we needeth Blu Ray). Killzone 2 is confirmed to have a beta, online multiplayer, and in all likelyhood (given the Game Informer preview), it will have online co-op.
Will compromises be made for online versus offline? Um, probably. How is the Xbox 360 resolving this problem again? Keep in mind the Xbox 360 cannot even play these levels offline in a cohesive singleplayer package on one disc, much less online.
As for Blue Dragon: No, not by the plot. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. Unfortunately, I haven't played the game. Unless you want to ask somebody or play the game yourself, I guess we're gonna have to leave it there.
And Guerilla is in Sony's pocket (again, Spin City). 2GB levels online? Dream on. They don't even do that AFAIK on PCs right now, for the same reason. The whole level must be in memory online because actvity can be anywhere and everywhere. And how do we know it can't be done on the 360. GTA4 will be day-and-date and one disc, according to Rockstar North--and AFAIK with no real compromises, either.Did you read my post?
"Will compromises be made for online versus offline? Um, probably. How is the Xbox 360 resolving this problem again? Keep in mind the Xbox 360 cannot even play these levels offline in a cohesive singleplayer package on one disc, much less online."
Please read the whole thing next time.
Additionally, there has been a method devised (I think by Microsoft) to allow for huge numbers of players online simultaneously in order to bypass memory requirements.
"And how do we know it can't be done on the 360." To use your argument, because it cannot be done on the PC or the PS3. Dream on.
No real compromises? Regardless, Rockstar stated it was an issue. Period.
"In Sony's pocket." 'Mkay. They made it up. Thank you. I suppose everyone else did as well.
Then why didn't they drop the 360 version for fear of contaminating their masterpiece, bribe or no bribe? It must not have been as big an issue as they thought.Did you read my post?
"Will compromises be made for online versus offline? Um, probably. How is the Xbox 360 resolving this problem again? Keep in mind the Xbox 360 cannot even play these levels offline in a cohesive singleplayer package on one disc, much less online."
Please read the whole thing next time.
Additionally, there has been a method devised (I think by Microsoft) to allow for huge numbers of players online simultaneously in order to bypass memory requirements.
"And how do we know it can't be done on the 360." To use your argument, because it cannot be done on the PC or the PS3. Dream on.
No real compromises? Regardless, Rockstar stated it was an issue. Period.
"In Sony's pocket." 'Mkay. They made it up. Thank you. I suppose everyone else did as well.
BobHipJames
[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]The former. Remember, casuals aren't computer-literate and may have trouble even following simple instructions. They like it turnkey easy. Microsoft's approach, though more expensive, is turnkey easy (pop it in, you're done). People will pay for easy, especially turnkey easy. Otherwise, every TV in the world would have hundred-button remote controls and the like.Question: What's more difficult? Removing your 20 gig hard drive, buying an overpriced ($179) 120 gigabyte hard drive far over market value with less capacity than similarly priced hard drives (Newegg.com) and replacing it or...
Reading the PS3's hard drive replacement manual or any tutorial in any fringe area of the internet, popping out your old hard drive, replacing it with any 2.5" SATA drive you happen to have laying around, instantly increase the capacity of your console by using legitimate market value as opposed to some prohibitive licensing peripheral bullcrap.
HuusAsking
You forget that most likely casuals buying a PS3 are never going to want to replace their HDD anyway, so it's totally irrelevant.
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]The former. Remember, casuals aren't computer-literate and may have trouble even following simple instructions. They like it turnkey easy. Microsoft's approach, though more expensive, is turnkey easy (pop it in, you're done). People will pay for easy, especially turnkey easy. Otherwise, every TV in the world would have hundred-button remote controls and the like.Question: What's more difficult? Removing your 20 gig hard drive, buying an overpriced ($179) 120 gigabyte hard drive far over market value with less capacity than similarly priced hard drives (Newegg.com) and replacing it or...
Reading the PS3's hard drive replacement manual or any tutorial in any fringe area of the internet, popping out your old hard drive, replacing it with any 2.5" SATA drive you happen to have laying around, instantly increase the capacity of your console by using legitimate market value as opposed to some prohibitive licensing peripheral bullcrap.
dewmandew7
You forget that most likely casuals buying a PS3 are never going to want to replace their HDD anyway, so it's totally irrelevant.
But will casuals pay $400 for a console at all? The current trends say no, as most of them are gravitating towards the Wii (remember, casuals didn't flock to the PS2 until it was $200, and even I didn't get one until I could get it new for $100). If MS or Sony want to get their foot in the door, they need to slash that price. Microsoft is in a better position to get into casual territory.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment