Uh-oh. PS3 'Orange Box' fails.
- Thread starter ic1male
- Start date
With thinking like that, I'm surprised we ever moved away from CD-ROM.
20 disks, Bob's your uncle.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,025
Never use Resistance as an argument for the use of Blu-Ray.
It is widely acknowledged that that game has data repeated at least 3 times on the same disc to speed up the abysmal loading times.
No doubt Ratchet does a similar thing.... also, as said, PS3 games won't use the same sort of compression methods as DVD games do due to not needing more space.
Blu-Ray is still not needed and won't be essential for practically anything this generation. Encryption methods are forever improving and there is still plenty of capacity on a DVD.
There might be the odd huge game with a shed load of FMV (FFXIII maybe?) that would need multiple DVDs but these games are rare and swapping discs is not an issue in something like this.
Thank you for ignoring vital considerations such as convenience. We moved from floppy disks to CDs for a reason. One or two extra discs is hardly going to prove detrimental to an experience. Four, or five or even more will. Silly retorts like this will bore me if you overdo it.
Soldato
No, not atall. But that's not really what this is about. Bluray is a superior format, And so many people deny it. Splitting a game over discs, Is admitting the disc is too small. It works obviously, but it's not always a feesable method, for example, GTA that likes to have the world loaded, and have free roaming, That can't be done over multiple discs can it. Or it can, But will take extra coding, and game structuring. Where as if the format was bigger they wouldn't need to even give it a second thought.
And if I could get a fluid version of FF7 on 1 DVD, I would.
Of course you would.
I'd like to think anybody would.
Given the choice at disk swapping, or not... surely not disk swapping is better?
Like VideoCDs, never really took off, had to change disks half way through the film.
Or the early "flipper" dvds, that needed turning over half way.
If I had an XBOX360, and a PS3, and the same game came out for both, identical in every way, but, one on one disk, and one on two or three, I'd get the one on one disk. Those who say they prefer disk swapping must surely just be arguing, for the sake of arguing?
the only use bluray has in games is cutscenes
Soldato
and lovely uncompressed sound!
Which really matters to most people.
Soldato
No, Bluray has space for the developer to use any way they want to. Cutscene space, Audio Space, data space. Capacity is capacity. It's not for anyone but the developer to allocate.
I'm sure people said the same about DD5.1 and DTS when DVD first came out.
BUT, Final Fantasy games are known for having lots of top quality FMV and Metal Gear Solid 2 (and apparently 3) were loads of loads of cut-scenes.
I'm not saying this is bad if they are entertaining though.
Who has said Blu-Ray isn't a superior format? I've not seen anyone deny that it is.
Soldato
I agree, I was just re-posting what i'd read elsewhere. Personally I couldn't give a rats ass about how much you can fit on a disc or if the game comes on 100 discs, aslong as its a good game and I enjoy it
Associate
and lovely uncompressed sound!
how i wish i had ears like yours that can tell the difference.
Can i please have links to those quotes, it would be great for another forum that i'm aruging in favour of the PS3
The one thing people seem to forget is that it's all well and good having the space to fill but the time it takes a company to fill that space is money lost.
I can't see many, if any companies spending time and money creating stupidly large games that fill up entire BR discs when they could spend less time making smaller games which would most likely sell just as well.
Also, it's all well and good having all this space for nice fancy textures but if the PS3 isn't powerful enough to run the large textures then what's the point?
Oh, and I've seen bigger and better games fitting on a DVD9 so the whole RFOM 22gb goes out the window right there.
I can't see many, if any companies spending time and money creating stupidly large games that fill up entire BR discs when they could spend less time making smaller games which would most likely sell just as well.
Also, it's all well and good having all this space for nice fancy textures but if the PS3 isn't powerful enough to run the large textures then what's the point?
Oh, and I've seen bigger and better games fitting on a DVD9 so the whole RFOM 22gb goes out the window right there.
Soldato
Let's hope those developers go bust, and we end up with developers who are willing to put in the time and money then.
As for the RFOM thing, Bigger and better games? Better would be an opinion of yours right? So okay, You keep that.
But bigger? Are we talking ingame world? I'm guessing so, Because if that's the case, I know a game thats bigger than a hell of a lot of games out there, and it fits on a 1 MB cartridge.
We weren't really talking about games on a scale of in game worlds, but more the physical attributes that are contained on the format of choice.
The opportunities certain media offer. Bluray gives the space for a lot of uncompressed data. Yes the 360 can offer the same with lossless compression, But even when that's done, It still stretches the limits of the dvd9, As seen with GOW.
Anyways, this is becoming circular, and I'll step out.
@robgmun, I'll have to look for the links later, they are separate links lol.
Believe it or not its quite easy if the soundtrack is designed well ( speaking from experience of 100+ BR's and HD-DVD's)
Damarus - how is it money lost when its been proven that a more emersive game will sell better (im not saying that you HAVE to have larger amounts of data storage to do this , but it HAS to help considerably), so as long as the devs make it worthwhile they will sell more copies.
Obviously if the concept is bad originally then there is no helping the project but with a decent game, more detail and effects, places to explore will always be a good thing for gamers - as long as its not just adding areas because you can.
*** PS3 is at the very beginning of its life cycle (ten years according to Sony) so the dev kits are going to get more and more progressive as time wears on allowing the devs to produce different things - I dont think anyone knows what the PS3 is completely capable (or not) until its phased out
Whether one game is "better" than another is purely subjective, Im sure in your opinion you are right but someone else may think your "better" is worse for x,y and z. Both of you are right and wrong (-:
Last edited: