This topic is locked from further discussion.
Uncharted has no loading when you play the game. If more developers used the PS3 hardware properly, then there would be no loading or installing. It would all be streamed off the disc.
hyperboy152000
That I think is because of the PS3s built in HD, I think it uses it for paging (pre-loads stuff temporarily onto the HD to reduce load times by not having to read the disc when it needs the data).
While you math is technically logical, I have my doubts for a few reasons.
1) The time arguement would only apply if you play way more consoles games than PC games. If you only play a few PC games but have a ton of consoles games, then sure, the install times would in the long-term be less than the disk swapping times. If you have equal games for both, I doubt that you swap disks more time for your console than you spend installing the same number of games on PC. If you have more console games or play more console games, then what does that say about consoles vs PC gaming?
No it is better installing games. You install a single game and the loading times are nice and fast, as are startup times.
As consoles games require switching disks, and have longer loading times - as streaming data off the disk - Installing games is much better.Why else do PS3 games now have the option to install?
2) I doubt it takes 1:20 to switch disks. I've never timed it, but that seems like a long time to eject one disk and slide in another. Maybe you are right, I don't know. Just seems long to me.
It depends on placement of disks. Personally I dislike having to go back and forth switching disks, as it irritates me - But what can you do.
3) You should include the amount of time spent on PC downloading and installing patches, since that is required to make your PC games run properly.
And you have to do exactly the same with cosnole games nowdays - so there goes that argument.
4) Most importantly, I can't speak for everyone. But for myself...I don't swap disks when I play. I typically play one game at a time and it sits in my console until I beat it. So that negates your whole rebuttal since the time swapping disks for me is practically zero.
I like a variety of games. I always jump between games. I might play some Sup Com, Fallout, then Mechwarrior. Same on my Xbox, I always jump between titles - rather just keeping the disk in the drive for exteneded periods.
ZIMdoom
[QUOTE="hyperboy152000"]Uncharted has no loading when you play the game. If more developers used the PS3 hardware properly, then there would be no loading or installing. It would all be streamed off the disc.
Ilikemyname420
That I think is because of the PS3s built in HD, I think it uses it for paging (pre-loads stuff temporarily onto the HD to reduce load times by not having to read the disc when it needs the data).
Right. Streaming. Just like I said. The game loads some stuff into the HDD when you start, and then basically continuously streams off the disk, to the HDD, when needed. No loading and no installing needed. Just streaming off the disk.
And UNcharted looks and plays amazing. So if Uncharted can do it, why can't anyone else? Oh yeah...they don't want to learn the PS3 hardware. They just want to develop games the way they have for the past 20 years...an overreliance on massive amounts of RAM.
Right. Streaming. Just like I said. The game loads some stuff into the HDD when you start, and then basically continuously streams off the disk, to the HDD, when needed. No loading and no installing needed. Just streaming off the disk.
And UNcharted looks and plays amazing. So if Uncharted can do it, why can't anyone else? Oh yeah...they don't want to learn the PS3 hardware. They just want to develop games the way they have for the past 20 years...an overreliance on massive amounts of RAM.
hyperboy152000
Alot of it's game design in general IMO, they aren't going to make the game then tack on no-loading times after, they have built it from the ground up to work like that. When you get companies that release a game on multi-plats or at least have planned for multi-plats they probably wouldn't bother because for them it would be like making a whole new game at that point...just to give someone no loading times.
Other thing is it takes 2 years or more sometimes to make games, and alot of the games that will fully utilize PS3 have not come out yet.
While you math is technically logical, I have my doubts for a few reasons.
1) The time arguement would only apply if you play way more consoles games than PC games. If you only play a few PC games but have a ton of consoles games, then sure, the install times would in the long-term be less than the disk swapping times. If you have equal games for both, I doubt that you swap disks more time for your console than you spend installing the same number of games on PC. If you have more console games or play more console games, then what does that say about consoles vs PC gaming?
No it is better installing games. You install a single game and the loading times are nice and fast, as are startup times.
As consoles games require switching disks, and have longer loading times - as streaming data off the disk - Installing games is much better.Why else do PS3 games now have the option to install?
2) I doubt it takes 1:20 to switch disks. I've never timed it, but that seems like a long time to eject one disk and slide in another. Maybe you are right, I don't know. Just seems long to me.
It depends on placement of disks. Personally I dislike having to go back and forth switching disks, as it irritates me - But what can you do.
3) You should include the amount of time spent on PC downloading and installing patches, since that is required to make your PC games run properly.
And you have to do exactly the same with cosnole games nowdays - so there goes that argument.
4) Most importantly, I can't speak for everyone. But for myself...I don't swap disks when I play. I typically play one game at a time and it sits in my console until I beat it. So that negates your whole rebuttal since the time swapping disks for me is practically zero.
I like a variety of games. I always jump between games. I might play some Sup Com, Fallout, then Mechwarrior. Same on my Xbox, I always jump between titles - rather just keeping the disk in the drive for exteneded periods.skrat_01
Spin it any way you want, you aren't changing my mind. Installing sucks and I question your math that over the years you spend way more time switching disks. And the reason console games are starting to install is because developers insist on sticking with the same old way of making games...PC **** This is why they all whine and complain about the PS3 hardware. Yet when somebody does it properly, like Naughty Dog did with uncharted (Or Jak and Daxter back in the day) you get a game that requires ZERO installing and has zero loading.
Regardless of your blind and obsessive desire to defend PC's with ridiculousa arguements you can't even defends....that is on a complete tangent of the main arguement. That PCs aren't the best determining factor for what is or isn't needed. they were the LAST to adopt DVD and I don't see hermit saying the DVDs aren't needed when they can just intall everything off cds.
*edit* Why does it censor s.t.y.l.e ?
[QUOTE="skrat_01"]While you math is technically logical, I have my doubts for a few reasons.
1) The time arguement would only apply if you play way more consoles games than PC games. If you only play a few PC games but have a ton of consoles games, then sure, the install times would in the long-term be less than the disk swapping times. If you have equal games for both, I doubt that you swap disks more time for your console than you spend installing the same number of games on PC. If you have more console games or play more console games, then what does that say about consoles vs PC gaming?
No it is better installing games. You install a single game and the loading times are nice and fast, as are startup times.
As consoles games require switching disks, and have longer loading times - as streaming data off the disk - Installing games is much better.Why else do PS3 games now have the option to install?
2) I doubt it takes 1:20 to switch disks. I've never timed it, but that seems like a long time to eject one disk and slide in another. Maybe you are right, I don't know. Just seems long to me.
It depends on placement of disks. Personally I dislike having to go back and forth switching disks, as it irritates me - But what can you do.
3) You should include the amount of time spent on PC downloading and installing patches, since that is required to make your PC games run properly.
And you have to do exactly the same with cosnole games nowdays - so there goes that argument.
4) Most importantly, I can't speak for everyone. But for myself...I don't swap disks when I play. I typically play one game at a time and it sits in my console until I beat it. So that negates your whole rebuttal since the time swapping disks for me is practically zero.
I like a variety of games. I always jump between games. I might play some Sup Com, Fallout, then Mechwarrior. Same on my Xbox, I always jump between titles - rather just keeping the disk in the drive for exteneded periods.ZIMdoom
Spin it any way you want, you aren't changing my mind. Installing sucks and I question your math that over the years you spend way more time switching disks. And the reason console games are starting to install is because developers insist on sticking with the same old way of making games...PC **** This is why they all whine and complain about the PS3 hardware. Yet when somebody does it properly, like Naughty Dog did with uncharted (Or Jak and Daxter back in the day) you get a game that requires ZERO installing and has zero loading.
Regardless of your blind and obsessive desire to defend PC's with ridiculousa arguements you can't even defends....that is on a complete tangent of the main arguement. That PCs aren't the best determining factor for what is or isn't needed. they were the LAST to adopt DVD and I don't see hermit saying the DVDs aren't needed when they can just intall everything off cds.
*edit* Why does it censor s.t.y.l.e ?
IM not being blind, obsessive, or unrealistic.Im being a realist here.
Im just as much of a console gamer as you will ever be.
And use logic. There is never a single standard optical disk for PC. During 2000-2001 The vast majority of PC users had only CD-Rom drives - so why would developers bother putting games on DVD?
Whats the point - you limit the amount of people who can play your game, and you can just do multiple CD installation, which would have been much cheaper than adopting to a new format.
And the 'zero installing and zero loading' doesent work for every game.
Sticking a linear tight game like Uncharted into the category of a game like Crysis when it comes to loading is bizzare.
Each game is technically very different - Just because a few games on the PS3 can achieve this data streaming, doesent mean every can.
Compressed data installed onto a HDD. Blu-ray isn't absolutely needed for gaming but it is useful. Considering it's prettmuch a free inclusion there's nothing to complain about.Lazy_Boy88
Biggest misconception...its not FREE, the reason the PS3 was 600 dollars was because of among other things Blu-Ray...without it, im sure it would have started off at around 400
Lair is the perfect counterexample. There are some things that simply require vast amounts of memory. A big realtime game world is one of them. Because of the lack of memory, Factor 5 was forced to take shortcuts and make sacrifices--sacrifices that likely contributed to ruining the game. To have a large, persistent, and always-interactive game map you simply are going to need a lot of memory--no way around it; it's like the fact you need a minimum of three objects to do a proper juggle. That's why Crysis has such a high RAM requirement; even on its lowest settings it uses over 600MB of memory--it's not the graphics that are hogging the space but the resourced needed to keep track of everything. There's just no substitute for a good amount of RAM.And the 'zero installing and zero loading' doesent work for every game.
Sticking a linear tight game like Uncharted into the category of a game like Crysis when it comes to loading is bizzare.
skrat_01
Each game is technically very different - Just because a few games on the PS3 can achieve this data streaming, doesent mean every can.
[QUOTE="Screamteam411"]Okay, so apparently the Xbox 360 is doomed because it's using "last-gen" hardware, such as DVD-9's. And of course, the cow's must argue that Blu-Ray is necessary if you want the "real next-gen experience," because developers are running out of room on DVD-9's. Okay, sure. So then I ask you, why don't PC's need Blu-Ray Disc players to play the latest and greatest? Why is it that Crysis didn't need a Blu-Ray Disc? Besides, of course, to win the format war.True_Gamer_
because some peoples' iq is too low to click "next"...
HOOOO HOOOO i get de joke
Installing games does not suck, in fact, over a longer period of time you could easily spend less time installing than you otherwise would switching out discs for consoles. On average I spenda bout 1 minute and 20 seconds switching out game discs each time. I do thisa bout four times a day. Over the span of a few years that number grows exponentially. Compare that t o the static ammount of time it takes to install a game and get a no-cd fix, and you could easily end up saving money. Its much less of a hassle. besides, there are PC games that are beginning to be able to be streamed from the disc.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]. Installing games sucks and I would probably still game on my PC if I could just pop in a disk and play. And if the PS3 can run Uncharted without loading, I don't see why PC's aren't being designed for rapid streaming off disks instead of relying on install. Maybe because installing massive games encourages people to buy more RAM and HDD upgrades. I don't know.ZIMdoom
While you math is technically logical, I have my doubts for a few reasons.
1) The time arguement would only apply if you play way more consoles games than PC games. If you only play a few PC games but have a ton of consoles games, then sure, the install times would in the long-term be less than the disk swapping times. If you have equal games for both, I doubt that you swap disks more time for your console than you spend installing the same number of games on PC. If you have more console games or play more console games, then what does that say about consoles vs PC gaming?
2) I doubt it takes 1:20 to switch disks. I've never timed it, but that seems like a long time to eject one disk and slide in another. Maybe you are right, I don't know. Just seems long to me.
3) You should include the amount of time spent on PC downloading and installing patches, since that is required to make your PC games run properly.
4) Most importantly, I can't speak for everyone. But for myself...I don't swap disks when I play. I typically play one game at a time and it sits in my console until I beat it. So that negates your whole rebuttal since the time swapping disks for me is practically zero.
En contrar, I am including the time it takes to patch and get games set up, which for all intents and purposes is negligble now that all that is practically fully automated. Still, the math behind what I'm saying is perfectly sound. While it seems like a small ammount of time at the beginning, you can acrue large ammoutns of time over a longer, extended period of time despite the other number being larger but static. Its easy logic to follow. My discs are strewn all over the place, and there are tons of discs everywhere. I also play tons of video games. T he reasons why I didn't go into detail about quantity of PC games is because it doesn't really mater. Whether its five or ten, its a constant exponential growth that is not affect. They are directly related.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment