NJ5 said:
MikeB said:
@ NJ5
there's no reason to optimize for space if you don't need it for other game data.
Sure there is. With regard to graphics and audio you usually can't make files smaller without loosing data and thus quality. On the PS3 there's less reason to sacrifice on quality.
Game code can be compressed up to about a 2:1 ratio, an ultra fast processor like the Cell cannot improve this ratio only improve decompression time. If you understand how data compression works it's not like a lower quality vs a higher quality JPEG, for game data there cannot be any data loss or you'll end up with a broken game engine.
Data compression works something like this. a=Sony Playstation 3 b= Microsoft XBox 360 c= Nintendo Wii d=rocks! e=sucks!
A compressed message (a lot less data):
adaebdbecdce
Uncompressed message:
Sony Playstation 3 rocks! Sony Playstation 3 sucks! Microsoft XBox 360 rocks! Microsoft XBox 360 sucks! Nintendo Wii rocks! Nintendo Wii sucks!
The better a the compression algorithm can predict what the code looks like the better the compression. For instance if the algoritm does not recognize 'Sega Dreamcast' there's no compression for this. For example:
adaebdbecdce'Sega Dreamcast'd'Sega Dreamcast'e |
You completely misunderstand what "optimizing for space is". Your post has actually repeated and helped proving precisely what I said. My point is that when you have the available space on the Blu-Ray disc and you're not space constrained, you might as well use it without worrying, without wasting time on optimizing for space where it doesn't negatively affect other aspects of the game. |
I think you claimed that before. I agree, on the 360 devs are more likely to make storage related sacrifices and try to do workaround approaches. I come from an Amiga background where the bulk of games (and some demoscene demos) had to be stored on 1 MB game discs. I understand well the used methods to get the most out of limited storage space availability.
