God of War III utilises 35GB of Blu-Ray space

[joeorc]

WilliamWatts said:

MikeB said:

WilliamWatts said:

MikeB said:

flowjo said:
so if this game was on 360 it would need 4 discs ... for an action game??

ohh man its gonna be awesome.

35 GIGS!!! im gonna smell my copy and admire it for like 5 mins then play it

360 DVDs hold no more than 6.8 GB of gamedata, so with equal level quality audio and textures 6 DVDs and potentially even 7 as developers usually resort to data duplicated when spanning a game on multiple discs (for consumer convenience).

It could probably fit into one DVD easily with a next generation GPU. They could do all the lighting prebaked into textures in real time. I suspect this type of game will be uncommon in the next generation because of this. 10:1 vs 8:1 texture compression helps as well.

Can you provide a source? I only read about their advanced HDRL technology, thousands of dynamic light sources and quadrupled resolution for textures.

I think the only option to make the data that small would be procedural synthesis, which almost always results into far inferior end results compared to hand drawn assets.

Its something which is pretty obvious (at least to me) because of the fact that its a pretty common technique for games which have a static time of day and general lightsources. The fact that the game uses so much space gives it away because if they were actually creating that many unique textures it would blow the budget sky high. A texture prebaked to a certain lighting condition cannot be used more than once unless the lighting is identical. So even if they haven't stated so explicitly (which they won't before release as it might damage the 'aura' of the game) they're very likely doing this.

Direct X 11 allows for higher compression of textures without noticeable loss in quality so therefore more high quality textures could fit onto the same disc. With Compute shader it will be able to light the scene dynamically without dropping performance under 60FPS and tessellation means that any models for terrain or characters can be stored in less than a tenth of the space.

 

 

which not all developer's use Direct X:

example :

Jack HoxleyMVP

states:

As a word of warning... a lot of developers get quite "polarised" about OpenGL vs Direct3D - it's the source of far too many flame wars in the digital world. Be careful how/where you ask 

ZMan's post summarises things nicely.

Direct3D is primarily, although not exclusively, for gaming and multimedia applications. It's what it's great at. OpenGL can do this as well, but it has a long history (and is still extensively used) outside of the gaming/multimedia world - CAD, Scientific Visualization etc...

Does anyone know of a list of modern mainstream OpenGL games?

Most, if not all, of John Carmack / ID Software's engines have been OpenGL oriented. So, Quake 3 and Doom 3 being a couple of examples

The bottom line / my advice to you... have a look at *both* API's and decide which one suits you better. I'm obviously biased towards one - but each to their own

hth
Jack

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/gametechnologiesgeneral/thread/0338f435-a1fb-455b-9650-c1a3624e2493

like I stated before you have two camp's stating one of their way's is better to develop game's on an that they could use this tool or that, but I guess it all depends on said developer's.