By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
hsrob on 14 May 2010
Edit Thread
TheNoobHolocaust said:
hsrob said:
TheNoobHolocaust said:

This is where the Blu-Ray disc really starts to shine, The 360 and PS3 may be on level playing field processor-wise. But because of Blu-Ray and its 25gb per layer disc, PS3 has more potential to make the games bigger, and better looking without compromising the game length/graphics.

I believe that we have been seeing this with recent games, 360 developers often lower the game resolution so they can fit the game onto a 4.5gb per layer disc.

For Example, Alan Wake had the potential to make the resolution 720p, but its assumed either they got lazy (unlikely for a game that has been in development for 4 years) or they couldn't find a way to fit the game onto a single 9gb dual layered disc without shortening the game (thankfully they didn't), so they reduced the game's resolution.

For another example, Final Fantasy XIII, which I think was handled better, Square Enix split the game onto 3 dual-layered discs, although the game's resolution was 576p (instead of the 720p on the PS3 version), the game wasn't drastically different form the PS3 version.

I think in the near future most 360 games will be made on more than one disc.

What size disc is Crysis on? 

Face palm, you guys still don't get me do you... Not once did I say that either console has been maxed out. I said a Dual-Layered Blu-Ray disc gives a game 50gb to mess around with, and with that they can add more light effects, scenery, and visually appealing things, not to mention they can extend the length of the game, as opposed to DVD where you only have 9gb to work with on one Dual-Layered disc.

And why bring PC into this if everybody knows PC graphics > Consoles graphics.

Again this is IMO, in terms of potential in Graphics PC > PS3 = 360 > Wii. Notice I said POTENTIAL, I say that because of hardware specs. And for future reference please ask if you don't understand what I am saying, don't flame, this site doesn't need to turn into a flamebait in every thread.

There's no misunderstanding, it's just the reason people aren't 'getting' your point is because it's wrong.

Space is not the limiting factor to graphics quality at this time.  Sure, you could fill a Blu Ray disc with huge uncompressed textures etc. that simply wouldn't fit on a DVD but it does you no good if the system in question does not have the processing to display said textures/objects at a reasonable frame rate.

The PC is relevant because it is still 'constrained' by the same media that the 360 uses, yet still manages to have much better graphics than is seen in most console games.  Space just isn't much of a factor at this point, processing is.  PS3 games are looking better because of investments of time and money, and developers getting a better handle on how to utilise the Cell's SPUs.

Your point about Alan Wake potentially being 720p except for space is just incorrect.  A game can simply be run in a higher resolution with the same resolution textures etc, this doesn't mean the game occupies more space on a disc.  Certainly with a bump in resolution you have the opportunity to increase your texture resolution and have a greater amount of detail on display but the higher resolution can be implemented alone and will still make for a better looking game. Alan Wake is a 7.3 gigabyte file.  According to your reasoning, even if they couldn't 'fit' 720p on the disc surely they could at least have bumped the game to 600p (COD4) or 640p (Halo3) in order to utilise that last 1.7 gigs of space.  Why didn't they?

All other things being equal Blu Ray could theoretically allow developers to make longer games or at least games with more varied scenery and textures but then you start hitting budget constraints, the reason games are/seem to be much shorter this generation than last.

I never once debated your hierarchy of processing just your assertion that games are being run in lower resolutions because of storage contraints.