This was inevitable with the DVD maxing out at 8.5 GB. Many people said "oh by the time games will go higher than that, compression will be good enough for it not to matter." Next time you go ranting that the PS3's blu-ray was unneccesary think of it this way, GTA IV is now worse because of the DVD limitations of the 360. Ok, let me explain myself, Rockstar games has admitted that the 360's DVD and lack of HD are holding back the full-potential of GTA IV and giving it limitations. yea its not bad for Rockstar and 360 fans because they will still be getting the money flowing with over 10 million consoles sold, but it is bad for the people who want GTA IV to be all that it can be. Sorry for totally pulling a Sony fanboy rant, but I was fighting for a year that blu-ray was actually worth it with little proof that the blu-ray was actually going to be worth something to videogames. Now I have something and it makes me feel better. lol. here's the article that I got my story from:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/785/785344p1.html
The trailer itself is 360 footage... and that looks pretty good to me. And apparently it's not just the 360, but like it says in the article, they're have problems on the PS3 too.
Fact is, the problems with developing for the PS3 hardware will decrease as developers get more acquainted with the machine, whereas the limitations of using a DVD in this generation is something that can only get worse for the 360 as projects become bigger and more ambitious. And the 360 is not even 2 years old yet.
Not that any missed this as an eventual shortcoming. Developers have been well aware that this would eventually occur, and we'll only be seeing more of this as time moves forward.
The playstation 2 had plenty of limitations that hindered the progress and creativity of all of the third-party developers that felt chained to it's flimsy plastic shell, but I didn't hear any sony fans bringing that up last generation. Their motto? "I buy the system that gets the games." Now that Microsoft is in the lead and is getting more and more developer attention it's "Oh my gawd! Developers have such a burden having to sqeeze everything onto one or two DVDs when they could be using the feature that we spent an extra $200 on! The industry is suffering! Think of the children!"
I think that if they started making games for the Xbox 360 HDDVD drive this could become something to look forward to. I say this because the HDDVD format can hold much more than a DVD can also. If the drive catches on then the playing field will become more even as price and function will be come similar. Although [if this is correct] the fully upgraded 360 costs about as much as the PS3's highest offering then the 360 would still have it's install base FTW. If/When all of this occurs then the Wii will either get buried or gain the lead. It's still too early in the game to go on a rant about who will win the battle but as far as GTA:IV goes I think that gamers should want the game companies to do some things differently so that this will be only get better with time. They could also restrict the game to systems with hard drive. I think that will work out with most people.
The fact is 90% of "next-gen" games are going to have to take into account Xboxs lack of space and shortcomings in physics processing area and PS3s lack of RAM and inferior graphics chip. Companies simply cannot afford to make exclusives for a console that has a very slowly expanding userbase or a system that could well be the biggest flop in 10 years. It's obvious that neither PS3 or 360 will be a runaway winner this generation, most games on them will be multiplatform.
The only systems that will be maxed out are Wii, DS and PSP, if it's still alive in 2 years.
Is being stupid on purpose your gimmick or something? Because literally everything you said was wrong.
No, didn't you hear the PS3 has been outsold by the GBA?
and the PS3 would be the ultimate database machine. The cell processor is NOT a good gaming processor. Hell, it's even been admitted. Here: http://www-304.ibm.com/jct03004c/businesscenter/venturedevelopment/us/en/featurearticle/gcl_xmlid/8649/nav_id/emerging
and I read the Wii was only slightly more powerful then the original Xbox.
EDIT: NPD numbers from March
HW Sales
Nintendo DS 508K
PlayStation 2 280K
Wii 259K
Xbox 360 199K
PlayStation Portable 180K
Game Boy Advance 148K
PlayStation 3 130K
GameCube 22K
Xbox n/a
don't tell me i'm wrong again.
There was something wrong about everything you said.
[quote=Poco;574694]PSP will be deader then the PC.
PC isn't dead, what?
[quote=Poco;574694] Wii is only slightly more powerful then the original Xbox, so it should be easy to max out.
Power has absolutely no bearing on how easy a systems power is to harness. If that were true then the Sega Saturn would be easier to max out than a Wii, which is bollocks.
[quote=Poco;574694]The Ps3 has been outsold by the GBA twice
The GBA has been out for 6 years and actually has decent games. Stupid comparison.
[quote=Poco;574694]and is more geared toward being the ultimate database machine and cheap blu-ray player, not a gaming machine, at all.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what a database is. There's nothing about PS3 that makes it the "ultimate database machine".
[quote=Poco;574935]fake post
What?
[quote=Poco;574935] makes no sense.
In what way does it not make sense? Sega Saturn was the worst designed system ever, it had 7 processors. It was notorious for being difficult to program for. Wii is lightyears ahead of Sega Saturn, and much easier to program for.
[quote=Poco;574935] but it's still true. The GBA, this late in its lifespan, has outsold the 'massive behemoth' of the ps3.
Thing is, something that old outselling something so new is amazing. I'm sure even you could understand that. Yet, I supply proof and you tell me I'm wrong?
The PS3 has only been available in all territories for a couple of months and is sorely lacking in games. GBA has been out years and has tons of great games. That's why it's a stupid comparison.
[quote=Poco;574935] Cell processor. Did you read the source I gave you or did you just click reply to tell me I'm wrong?
The word "data" doesn't even appear in that article. This confirms my suspision, you have no idea what a database even is.
I don't think anyone is actually this stupid and people have told me that you like to troll. Keep it up and you'll get a one-way ticket to bansville.
Lol, PS3 also costs like a dozen times more than the Gameboy Advance too.
yeah but it's not three generations old either.
Or pretty much abandoned by the company that created it.
I just read in the latest issue of Xbox official magazine. That Microsoft is already working on a add on Blu Ray drive for xbox 360 in case HD DVD infact loses the war to Blu Ray so they can make the switch to Blu ray format.
Yeah can anyone else confirm this...this would seem like a major early capitulation on MSofts part.
And to think, I thought I was the ONLY person on here that couldnt stand Poco.
this dosent really matter because gta 4 will be better on the 360 anyways because it will have downloadable story/ missions where the ps3 will not.
[quote=Big Boss;581558][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]Wow, I find it hard to believe. Was it in a rumor section?[/COLOR][/FONT]
Considering Microsoft very recently said they're not working on a Blu-Ray drive I'd say it's a rumour, a misprint or just plain wrong.
Microsoft don't have an HD-DVD drive to cash in on HD video, they have it to support it and ensure Sony doesn't win.
All I know is that playing GTA on PS2 was pretty frustrating compared to the box. the blu-ray isn't a good enough reason for me to blow 200 bucks when I could just keep my 360 and deal with HD.
you ever heard of loading times...Did I hear an echo, i could have swore someone said the ps will have downloadable content too.
didn't the xbox also have 3D RIMS/HUBCAPS
i remember the xbox fanboys going crazy over that
3D rims, never noticed that. I guess the load times just seemed alot worse than I thought.
The xbox version made everything a tad more detailed and clearer in some areas... but people focused on the rims and how nice they looked.
This is America, they're MicroSoft. Eventually a fix will be found, and they'll name it Xbox 360[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
As long as they are still kickin the PS3's *** in sales why bother?
Because complacency leads to failure. You can bet Sony isn't giving up anytime soon and they'll start seeing sales once they get their AAA titles out (or any games for that matter.) You don't want developers complaining about your system or feeling hindered, especially when there's another, "better" option out there.
Though, I don't think it honestly matters. Very few games will push the limits of a DVD's space, plus better compression tools will be developed making the whole thing fairly moot.
I hope that X-Box doesn't limit GTAIV. If it happens, I'll feel quite dead inside. It was bad enough when I learnt X-Box was getting GTAIV.
So like, I get to see burnt builds of 360 games. I don't know how many of you have burnt discs before, but for those who haven't you can actually see how much of the disc is being used up by data.
None of the high-profile 360 games (or PC, for that matter) use even half a DVD.
Yet supposedly, alot of modern game are already taking up more bluray space than DVD's. Apparently Blacksite: Area 51 and Ratchet and clank TOD are.
I thought that was because they were duplicating data on the disc to cut down the hideous load times due to the ps3 laser's slow speed.
[quote=Speedfreak;591568]So like, I get to see burnt builds of 360 games. I don't know how many of you have burnt discs before, but for those who haven't you can actually see how much of the disc is being used up by data.
None of the high-profile 360 games (or PC, for that matter) use even half a DVD.
You work at EA, though. EA don't push the limits.
Uh, what? EA have some of the best talent and make a lot of the best games in the industry. It's the executives holding back the developers, such as last gen when every EA game HAD to run on PS2 thereby limiting what they could do.
Battlefield, Burnout, Skate, Fight Night and Command and Conquer 3 all have great graphics.
Not that they don't, but how much they push the system has very little to do with how much storage space the game takes up. In fact, if a game looks amazing and doesn't take up a ton of space that's actually a clear sign of a good developer. Other than FMV, graphics take up more space than anything else on a game disc.
Other than my work experience, I know for a fact that games like Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Quake 4 and so on don't use up more than a single DVD, despite having multiple versions of each texture and model to account for varying levels of processing power of the end user's PC.
PS3 games fill up a Blu-Ray either to purely say that did, thus justifying the useless format, or for redundent data to speed up the loading times and compensate for the PS3s slow disc drive.
And if you really want proof, here's a game that'll fit on one dvd that pisses all over every single game in development in terms of "pushing the limits".
[IMG]http://www.hardwired.hu/img/wg/2/743/Crysis_44.jpg[/IMG]
[quote=Speedfreak;592196]Uh, what? EA have some of the best talent and make a lot of the best games in the industry.
I'm saving this quote for later humiliation. You really cannot be serious.
[quote]Not that they don't, but how much they push the system has very little to do with how much storage space the game takes up. In fact, if a game looks amazing and doesn't take up a ton of space that's actually a clear sign of a good developer. Other than FMV, graphics take up more space than anything else on a game disc.Pushing the limits of storage. I didn't mention hardware.
[quote]Other than my work experience, I know for a fact that games like Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Quake 4 and so on don't use up more than a single DVD, despite having multiple versions of each texture and model to account for varying levels of processing power of the end user's PC.All these games are 3 years old, at least. Things have moved on. Half-Life 2 really pales graphically next to games like Crysis, Bioshock, and Resistance.
[quote]for redundent data to speed up the loading times and compensate for the PS3s slow disc drive.What? Additional data speeding up loading times?
[quote=The X;592471]I'm saving this quote for later humiliation. You really cannot be serious.
No, EA have some great programmers, artists and game designers that are continuously f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cked over by the jack[COLOR=lightgreen]a[/COLOR]ss up top that doesn't even play videogames. Look at Harry Potter for Christ's sake, it's one of the best-looking PS2 games ever despite being a blatent quick cash-in with a short development cycle. When given the proper chance they bring some out some amazing stuff, the Wii version of Madden being the both the best version of Madden available and one of the best examples of motion control on Wii is a great example.
[quote=The X;592471] Pushing the limits of storage. I didn't mention hardware.
*copy paste copy paste copy paste* I EM TEH 1337 PROGRAMMOR I PUSH TEH LIMITS OF ST0RA6E!!!
Better programmers/artists use less space, not more.
[quote=The X;592471]All these games are 3 years old, at least. Things have moved on. Half-Life 2 really pales graphically next to games like Crysis, Bioshock, and Resistance.
Can't help but notice the swift dodge of Crysis there, or the fact that HL2 has about 3 games worth of content on it because of the all the different assets for multiple system levels. A console game will have one set of assets for one system. Well done.
[quote=The X;592471] What? Additional data speeding up loading times?
Yes. Say the data for the last level is near the outer edge of a disc and the data for a player's weapon is near the middle, because you first use it at the beginning of the game. It takes extra time for the laser to move between those spots, so developers copy the gun data right next to the last level data so it doesn't need to move as far. This may seem like an insignificant amount of time, but consider that a file will be read from a disc in a few ms, but the laser moving will be 50-100ms and that a game reads hundreds and sometimes even thousands of files on a loading screen.
[quote=Speedfreak;592614]the Wii version of Madden being the both the best version of Madden available and one of the best examples of motion control on Wii is a great example.
Saying the Wii version of Madden is the best version of the game is like saying chlamydia is the best form of an STD. The controls are definitely laudable, but for every praiseworthy game EA has produced, there are at least 7 billion pieces of ****.
[quote]*copy paste copy paste copy paste* I EM TEH 1337 PROGRAMMOR I PUSH TEH LIMITS OF ST0RA6E!!!
Better programmers/artists use less space, not more.But pushing the limits of storage suggests the developers want to get as much content into their games as possible. Nobody is suggesting redundant code or copypasta = good practice.
[quote]Can't help but notice the swift dodge of Crysis there, or the fact that HL2 has about 3 games worth of content on it because of the all the different assets for multiple system levels. A console game will have one set of assets for one system. Well done.Bioshock and Crysis are PC games, primarily. So they'll be using the same practices as HL2. Except with textures of much higher detail. The Crysis dev team have already explained that the game will run on machines that are currently classed as mid-spec of even low-spec.
Ach, I'll reply tomorrow, but I'll just say that Fate's arguement is totally ironic. It actually works against PS3 and for 360.
What, the space thing? No way. You know how big models have to be to achieve a level of realistic smoothness combined with realistic textures and mapping? That stuff is extremely pricey, which is why even totally awesome games like Splinter Cell have some jaggedy.
I get what you're trying to say, but I think you might have worded it wrong. Efficient programmers use less space, but when you're on a team doing complex stuff not everyone can be so efficient when you tie it all together. And while efficient programmers use less space, there's still several lines of code that need to be written for implementation. Even if you had a team of super-programmers, not everyone codes the same and stuff has to be combined. And, even if they all wrote in the same way and were all somehow as efficient as one another, that still doesn't mean you can't write code to override another code by accident. Since soooo many lines of code make up a game with more complexity, all you can do is write a new line.
More lines and processes to read at once = more space necessary! The PS3's laser reader thing may be slow, but if the developers were smart and knew the PS3's hardware they would make the game load before you could play it.
Okay, basically, you've gotten a bit confused with the term "memory". Carlos will totally back me up on this one, when he talks about memory contraints for his code he's talking about RAM, NOT storage ie HDD or any disc format like Blu-Ray.
In this day and age storage isn't a problem for coders. Code is literally just text, and when you consider that a single character is a single byte and that several Bibles worth of text could fit on an old 1.44MB floppy disk there's no way that would ever be an issue for any coder for a current-gen or last-gen developer with over a thousand megabytes of storage to fill.
The same actually goes for storing artwork such as character models or, as you posted, sprites. RAM will be a much more immediate concern than storage will. Right click the image of Akuma you posted and check out the filesize, the actual in-game version of that sprite will be even smaller. The entire sprite sheet for Akuma would be around 5-25MB max. Even if there were 100 Street Fighter characters storage would not be an issue, it'd top out at 2.5GB with even my generous estimate. The only reason we haven't had graphics like that before is because no system has had enough RAM or the HD resolution capability to store and display graphics like that.
Likewise for 3D games, the discs never get filled by textures or character models because they're far too small in size and take too much time to make. If you did actually manage to fill up a DVD9 with just code, textures and other raw game materials and absolutely NO FMV your game would be one of, if not the most expensive games ever made because of the amount of man hours it'd take to produce. What does take up space is FMV and audio, but even then that wouldn't be much of a problem for 360 because the system's more than capable of using higher quality codecs that make files that much smaller. As someone at the begining of the thread said, we'll have better compression before this ever becomes an issue.
Now here's why your particular arguement is ironic. As I said, those things are RAM issues, not storage. Xbox 360 has double the video RAM and double the system RAM of PS3. That is to say all of it's 512MB can be used for anything, whereas PS3 is stuck with 256MB for graphics and 256 for everything else, which is a huge limiting factor and a much more immediate one.
But...but what about the cell processor? Doesn't having a super-powerful microchip at the heart of your system magically make everything else work better?
I can't even figure out what possible point you're trying to make with that.
... no one's trying to make a point. We're both being sarcastic.
lol
Wasn't the whole original argument down to the fact that when developing games for the 360, you have to allow for users that don't have a hard drive? DVD vs. Blu-Ray has always been a non-issue for gaming.
Don't see why HD would be a problem. You can't put something on an HD that isn't already on the disc, and Xbox's disc drive is several times faster than Blu-Ray so streaming wouldn't be much of an issue.
I guess.
I just love how the original question was a loaded one, and then he says something to the effect of 'both systems have their pitfalls' and then everyone takes it as a blow to the Xbox because it came from a PS3 point of view.
****ing zing
Totally worth it thread-necro. Originally, I was going to say the same thing, but I couldn't back it up with anything in Speedy's post history.
Nyeh. Even I can accept that EA has evolved from a mega-sized powerhouse with high-profile franchises that suck ass to a mega-sized powerhouse with high-profile franchises that are actually kinda good. Companies change. sony used to make decent games, after all, and there was a time when Atari was the only name for video games, whereas now they're just the name of a French publisher that didn't want their moniker to be unpronounceable anymore.
He was badmouthing them dangerously close to when he actually started working there. EA hasn't changed much in two years.
[font=trebuchet ms]Actually, the company is just now making some major changes (Peter Moore to EA, anyone?). Review scores have steadily been declining for EA games, especially their sports titles. The G[color=yellowgreen]odfather stands alone in its quality next to underwhelming titles like Superman Returns, Batman Begins and Marvel Nemesis in the license front. Just a couple of months ago there was an article from an analyst (who isn't predicting the future like they normally try, so lay off) on several game sites about how the EA brand has been tarnished, pointing out poorly received games like NFL Head Coach and Arena Football (which I playtested myself at EA), and series with declining review scores such as NBA Live and Need for Speed. And let's not forget the growing displeasure every year of Madden NFL, which apparently gets fans ****ed off because there's little innovation now that 2K Sports can't continue to compete neck-to-neck with them because of the exclusivity deal.
Not to say the EA brand is plain out bad, and just like before when I defended it here against the lot of you, it holds some really good titles. SSX set itself as the best snowboarding franchise rendering 1080 obsolete by comparison. NBA Street is still sweet, and they've bought developers that bring them fan and media-favorite titles like Burnout, and anything Will Wright. Plus, just like before, from time to time a licensed product will be very fun to play (I had hoped it would be Returns, but
Yeah, right, I'm a
Oh, come on. We talk on a variety of topics, and you are much more of an advocate than you need to be.
Oh hey, have you guys ever played RuneScape? I hear it's awesome.
I went on for an entire month about Harry Potter was the worst game on earth!
Yeah, good cover, buddy. "Hey, I'm gonna complain about one obviously bad title so I don't seem like a shill!"
in b4 "i'm never serious on the internet"
...you guys are faggots.
Speedfreak is losing a lot of arguments today, lol.
Have any of you guys heard about EAs new game Boogie? I've played it and it's the best game in the world ever.
No one wants to hear your opinions, corporate shill. Gb2ur/14 dollar an hour job, shill.
*Bites poisoned EA apple* Say, I have heard about that game, Speedfreak. It appears from my perspective to be a tour de force of dance/rythm action with an art style rivaling UbiSoft's Rayman series. I am interested in signing up for email updates about said game, and would like to give EA full access to all of my personal information via the web in exchange for EA Fun Points which I can use to purchase nearly a whole downloadable feature for one of EA's upcoming online titles. Please tell me how to go about doing so, and also carpet bomb the email to everyone in my address book.
I also played Guitar Hero III. The tracklist sucks, Rock Band is much better.