Maybe Capcom finally gets it?

[Slackr89]

we need more companies that do this. instead of making it on 360 and making a bad port to ps3.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

People keep equating disc space with quality of the graphics. It has nothing to do with it. Games are made in 720p because they can do tons more filtering and other tricks to it because they're not trying to render twice as many pixels. Since both systems are pretty much equally powerful when it comes down to raw hardware, designers wisely spend cycles and RAM space where it matters more: better physics and AI, larger, more immersive environments and the like

Both systems are pretty much equally powerful, when it coms down to raw hardware?

Please explain to me why we see PS3 games that have better graphics than the Xbox 360 games and developers are supposedly only using 2 SPUs.

[Borrik]

@ Proteus & DK3

I am glad you guys could put it better than i could in so few words...

:: Standing Ovation::

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by saprano

wow! some good info DK3. so if a game like mds4 is 50gigs then how many disk will it need on a dvd "if" it were to come to the 360? ( wich now i know for a fact it wont)10 disk?

Too many unknown amount of variables involved in that.

Engine weight, and main game files
Weight of Reused sound assets,
Weight of Reused texture assets,
Weight of Reused level assets,
Weight of Reused animations,
Weight of Reused characters models + textures,
Weight of Reused character animations,

+ the weight of additional new content.

Without the answer to the variables we will never know, because size of disc does not give us these answers to these variables.

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by Borrik

@ Proteus & DK3

I am glad you guys could put it better than i could in so few words...

:: Standing Ovation::

Thank you its nice to be recognized but Proteus gave the more meat of a answer so how about a extra ovation for Proteus.

[tru2blu707]

Originally Posted by dk3dknight

I thought back tracking was good, re treading old areas because you didnt have the ability to go somewhere in that old area, games coming to mind like blaster master and Super Metroid.

i personally dont have a problem with back tracking....but other people seem to think its a sin! game reviewers dock points for back tracking. i think thats just ridiculous.

[Shin-Ra]

Depends what sort of backtracking we're talking about.

Resident Evil 4 - you backtrack to get to new areas. The excitement for the new environments ahead makes backtracking worthwhile.

Devil May Cry 4 - you don't backtrack at all (pretty much) then half way through the game it presents you with level after level of the same environments again.

In both examples there's plenty of changes mixed into the revisited areas to make them more interesting on return visits *but it's not enough in DMC4 to make level after level of what you've already seen very exciting.*

*IMO of course.

[tru2blu707]

honestly...with the intense fighting and bad @$$ dante to play with...i really didnt care where the fight took place. even if it is back tracking. the gameplay is what matters in dmc4. BUT it should be the exception not the rule

[SDG]

they need to quit with the 5gig download to my hard drive. I got a 60gig PS3 and over half of it is taken up. Give me the option of download or not. I dont sell my games so i dont plan of deleting stuff off of the hard drive when i finish a game.

[WickyWoo]

Also, disk space _DOES_ matter. Big time. I'm not sure why people argue differently. It's almost hypocritical for some to argue it while at that same time pushing a 'advantage' of Blu-ray as being 'more space' over HDDVD. When talking ultra high res textures and large scale gaming environments (worlds) space IS key. Particularly when you are discussing the future direction games are taking towards environments that evolve and encompass greater diversity (i.e. a game taking place on land, in water, in space, in snow, in mechs, etc., all in one title). 8.4gb or whatever the current max is for the 360 on DVD's (it's less than total DVD capacity, i know that) simply will not cut it within the next year even

Sorry guys, PC games right now, the biggest and largest are hitting 12GB, and that's for something like Medieval Total War with it's gigantic range of environments and textures (and not a game you're likely to see on a console any time soon). Virtually all of these games fit on one DVD, and they're capable of running well over 1080p resolutions for those nutbars with 3 grand to blow on a monitor. The question is not about "greater diversity of environments", it's about how much of those environments can actually be shown at any one time? And more importantly: How much time does the team have to actually FINISH said environments before ship date? 95% of games barely scratch the 5GB mark with their actual game data, and those that do go over on consoles (especially with PS3) are often filling that disc with duplicate assets to speed up loading without an install (ex-resistance). And there's still nothing stopping an "insert disc 2". Just because 30GB isn't enough for top quality movies, doesn't mean that 8GB isn't enough for 90%+ of games, especially at the levels the current consoles can handle.

Microsoft will stop their asinine limitations on Live downloads and hard drive installs as soon as it begins to negatively affect them. Since 90%+ of the 360 installed base has a hard drive, if something like a GTA wanted it, they'd get it.

they need to quit with the 5gig download to my hard drive. I got a 60gig PS3 and over half of it is taken up. Give me the option of download or not. I dont sell my games so i dont plan of deleting stuff off of the hard drive when i finish a game.

The BD-ROM is too slow to access the assets in a timely manner, by installing to the hard drive you're getting the fastest and best play possible. If you're finding the installs too much, then you should buy a bigger drive.

Both systems are pretty much equally powerful, when it coms down to raw hardware?

Please explain to me why we see PS3 games that have better graphics than the Xbox 360 games and developers are supposedly only using 2 SPUs.

I believe you'll have to cite me some specifics there so I know what you're referring to. As far as the "only using 2 SPUs", do a search under my name for "strapping teenagers", and you'll find a pretty good analogy

Without the answer to the variables we will never know, because size of disc does not give us these answers to these variables.

And how much of it is game, and how much is simply 1080p pre-rendered video

[Exhilarated]

Capcom used to be my favourite company till they:

1. Force ps3 users on a mandatory installation on practically all their games.
2. Makes practically all their games multiplatform resulting in a gimped down version of a -could be better- game like dmc4.
3. Remove monster hunter 3 from the ps3 list and make it on the inferior wii instead for more cash.

Unless they can redeem themselves by releasing mh3 on the ps3, stop forcing us to install and giving better time and quality on ps3 games, I'll not support them.

[cking2729]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

*but it's not enough in DMC4 to make level after level of what you've already seen very exciting.*

*IMO of course.

I agree. Devil May Cry 4 would have been infinitely better if they would have:
1)not regurgitated ~50% of the game
2)not regurgitated almost all of the game's chores 2+ times
3)kept the game going forward and let you continue as Nero, who was a hell of a lot more fun to play than Dante.

Upon playing the game start-to-finish 2 times now, it seems like they threw all of their gusto behind a mound of slick cutscenes, and then set the actual gameplay on autopilot.

For those reasons, Ninja Gaiden Sigma >>>> Devil May Cry 4.

*IMO of course

On that note, I hope Ninja Gaiden II eventually gets a port to the PS3. I REALLY want that game. To date, it is the only title that has ever made me envious of 360 owners. I doubt Sigma's sales figures are going to convince them any time soon, however.

[reiella]

Strange that the service with more paid backing has more bandwidth restrictions on it.

Nice to know they upped the limit. But that said, umm, I'm pretty sure SI was over that 150mb size, and I thought it was available via digital distribution on Live.

Might be more a case of a title not being an "Arcade" title and an actual expansion though.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Sorry guys, PC games right now, the biggest and largest are hitting 12GB, and that's for something like Medieval Total War with it's gigantic range of environments and textures (and not a game you're likely to see on a console any time soon).

Vanguard is pushing 18+gb right now [I know, it surprised me too, especially since it's a 2dvd install, but well overcompression for the win I guess].

The advantage, really comes, from stuff like being able to put more pre-rendered content, such as FMVs and voice on it.

With I believe most of the current 'real world benefit' coming from voice [and thus possibly reducing the number of presses for different localizations].

However, I must ask, how large is Lost Odyssey? I know it wouldn't be the 'sum of its parts' because of duplicated assets, but .

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And how much of it is game, and how much is simply 1080p pre-rendered video

Well that is nice way to take a single comment out of context, im saying since the developers are not going to turn around and give us the actually size of the assets in texture, map , audio , and model weight we will never know, and the person was asking about a what if the disc was 50gb's and was asking for a imaginary rundown.

I told him there were too many unanswered variables to do such a rundown, and
it would be pointless.

Pre-rendered video generally weighs more anyway over real level, video is always heavy in size, it can be compressed but you risk turning into a
pixelated mess like many psone and ps2 games did including alot of high budget pc games.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Sorry guys, PC games right now, the biggest and largest are hitting 12GB, and that's for something like Medieval Total War with it's gigantic range of environments and textures (and not a game you're likely to see on a console any time soon). Virtually all of these games fit on one DVD, and they're capable of running well over 1080p resolutions for those nutbars with 3 grand to blow on a monitor. The question is not about "greater diversity of environments", it's about how much of those environments can actually be shown at any one time? And more importantly: How much time does the team have to actually FINISH said environments before ship date? 95% of games barely scratch the 5GB mark with their actual game data, and those that do go over on consoles (especially with PS3) are often filling that disc with duplicate assets to speed up loading without an install (ex-resistance). And there's still nothing stopping an "insert disc 2". Just because 30GB isn't enough for top quality movies, doesn't mean that 8GB isn't enough for 90%+ of games, especially at the levels the current consoles can handle.

Microsoft will stop their asinine limitations on Live downloads and hard drive installs as soon as it begins to negatively affect them. Since 90%+ of the 360 installed base has a hard drive, if something like a GTA wanted it, they'd get it.



The BD-ROM is too slow to access the assets in a timely manner, by installing to the hard drive you're getting the fastest and best play possible. If you're finding the installs too much, then you should buy a bigger drive.



I believe you'll have to cite me some specifics there so I know what you're referring to. As far as the "only using 2 SPUs", do a search under my name for "strapping teenagers", and you'll find a pretty good analogy



And how much of it is game, and how much is simply 1080p pre-rendered video

* Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 / Vista
* PC with 1 GHz equivalent or higher processor
* 256 MB of system RAM for Windows XP SP2 / 512 MB Vista
* 14 GB available hard disk space
* DVD-ROM drive
* 32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
* Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
* 56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx

and one more:

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Download Minimum System Requirements

* Windows® 2000/XP
* 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible computer
* 100% DirectX compatible keyboard or input device
* Processor 2.4 GHz Intel processor or 2400+ or higher model AMD processor
* 512 MB RAM
* Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 128MB of texture memory
* 100%DirectX compatible sound card
* 56K + Internet Connection
* 20 Gigabytes Hard Drive Space

http://www.direct2drive.com/6/2375/p...eroes-Download

games for PC's are already passing 12 GB

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And there's still nothing stopping an "insert disc 2".

This really depends on the type of game.

Take Burnout: Paradise.

If the entire city was larger than a disc (I know it's not, I'm just talking example), and in order to go from the east half to the west half or vice versa you had to change discs, that's completely unacceptable.

Basically, disc changing is fine for more linear games, unacceptable for sandbox games.

[andyn1080]

Originally Posted by Slackr89

we need more companies that do this. instead of making it on 360 and making a bad port to ps3.

AMEN TO THAT!! i hate when i used to own a 360 and a demo would come out on xbl and psn and after comparing them the 360 would always be better. The last 3 demos i comparred were dmc4,burnout and fifa street.........all 3 looked better on ps3!! So keep it up

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Sorry guys, PC games right now, the biggest and largest are hitting 12GB, and that's for something like Medieval Total War with it's gigantic range of environments and textures (and not a game you're likely to see on a console any time soon). Virtually all of these games fit on one DVD, and they're capable of running well over 1080p resolutions for those nutbars with 3 grand to blow on a monitor. The question is not about "greater diversity of environments", it's about how much of those environments can actually be shown at any one time? And more importantly: How much time does the team have to actually FINISH said environments before ship date? 95% of games barely scratch the 5GB mark with their actual game data, and those that do go over on consoles (especially with PS3) are often filling that disc with duplicate assets to speed up loading without an install (ex-resistance). And there's still nothing stopping an "insert disc 2". Just because 30GB isn't enough for top quality movies, doesn't mean that 8GB isn't enough for 90%+ of games, especially at the levels the current consoles can handle.

I think the correct attitude to take re: the disc space issue is as follows. Granting for the sake of argument what's a bit controversial, and allowing that 8.5GB is (or should be) enough for most of the games being released at the moment, for what time frame will it continue to be adequate? Clearly not forever, not for ten years and probably not even for another five. But before we start to argue over exactly how many years, months and days DVD has left in it before _everyone_ agrees that it has become too small for games, let's call the whole thing off: let's refer over to the next disc technology, namely Blu-ray, and simply start using that _now_. And why not? So what if the drives don't spin up to 16x yet, there's 50GB available already so repeat the data and the results in the end are better (and quieter).

I don't mean to suggest that the disc space question is a non-issue, but PS3 owners may be inclined to shrug it off because they already have the new technology for games, so they don't have to worry about the limited longevity of DVD.