Whoa!! Kojima: "Blu-ray Disc Not Big Enough for MGS4″

[Lone_Canis_Lupus]

FJ-Warez said:

Lone_Canis_Lupus said:

FJ-Warez said:

 

Yeah forcing in the industry can mean a lot of things... But hey, he said, clearly, not me...

The whole "cut-scene are in game" is already debunked, there is a couple of trailers out there and all look prerendered, most of the people agree with that, if you don't believe me, compare the quality of the light, shadows, cloth simulation, and face gestures of the trailers vs the game demos... (The shadow maps look really bad in some places, but is a old demo...)...

I don't pretend to discuss this any further, so far we have two Kojima statemens, both are not mutually exclusive, and the only thing we can do know is wait...

MGS can be fulled of uncompressed 7.0 audio + tons of hd prerendered videos, or been the longest game evar, what does it sound more likely???

Neither. Full of 60 hours of UNCOMPRESSED 7.0 audio. 1.- I have a feeling the audio is taking up a huge chunk of this. Just like with Heavenly sword, 10GB of the game was audio....2/3 of the game was audio. All that there is for you guys to go by are the videos, just like all I have to go by is Kojima's word. 2.- But let me ask you this, what all does a in-game video have to be processed compared to actual in-game controlling? When you are moving around with the controller, that has to be processed as well as other values...ammo, the position of the bullets as you shoot them and stuff like that.

3.- In-game rendering is just a bunch of polygons with textures loaded onto them with sound going along with it. There are no other values to be calculated. Also, in-game a much bigger area is probably loaded for you to move around in while in-game rendered videos can just be in one area of the game and not have all the rest of that area loaded. 4.- In-game rendering of videos doesn't take as much power as the actual playing of the game. More textures need to be loaded for the much wider and bigger area to move around in for the actual playing of the game. 5.- Did any of you ever consider this?

EDIT: My bad, got my math wrong on Heavenly Sword....I was thinking about a single-layer HD-DVD for some reason. That should be 2/5 instead for a single layer BD...it's 12:30 here...I should be in bed and I only had 4 hours of sleep last time I slept. Sorry for the incorrect statement.

1.- First, audio is not "game", maybe 2/3 of the disc space is audio...

2.- What does the ingame control has to do with this discusion about the reason of the "50 gbs is not enough" statement???

3.- Theres a lot of values calculated for each frame, please, if you don't know how an engine works, stop make assumptions like this...

4.- Knobody has stated the opposite... and why you keep bringgin off topic things???

5.- In game videos are used to hide load times using very few resources, thats why I don't think they are going to use them, because so far the videos showed have a lot of quality, they look a lot better than just a ingame video...

 1. Correction, as you saw in my edit, it's 2/5's of the disc space. Also, the audio can be counted as part of the game if it is used in the game.

2. Quality might suffer in actual gameplay than it does in-game video with no interaction at all. That's my point.

3. Then more values are calculated in the actual gameplay along with the frame value. You guys said yourselves the 360 and PS3 "can't handle 1080p." There might be some point between them where in-game video can be flawless and where more processing just degrades the quality. After all, the CELL does help out the GPU somewhat.

4. Because you brought up the whole "Quality doesn't match thing", I'm debunking this. My point in saying that is, the extra processing while actually playing the game might degrade the quality compared to the in-game videos.

5. There you go. If they're using very few resources to load, then they can be using a majority of those resources for the in-game rendering. If they can cut down the size of the area to only a small area they need for the actual video, not as much RAM will be taken up for graphics processing.

 

I'm not giving that as evidence to it being in-game, just giving you a reasonable doubt about the whole "It has to be prerendered because of the difference" thing. This is in 1080p, a much larger area could be loaded into the RAM when actually playing the game, and a lot more is going on to process while actually playing the game. All I'm saying is that quality might suffer somewhat when actually playing the game.

 The "Quality is different" argument I don't think really holds water when considering those factors. Like I said, considering it's 1080p it might be easy to go from really good quality to worse quality. A larger area could be loaded into the RAM when playing the game so loading times are minimal compared to the in-game rendering. Last, a lot of extra values could be processed as well as the graphics and audio while actually playing the game.