MrOuija_AK on 23 April 2008
| Reasonable said: Some points on a view of the opinions here... a) Developers are mainly going to prefer an HDD. PS3 and 360 are essentially bringing consoles to same level of graphics/content as has existed on PCs for years - and they know it makes their life easier. b) game length has nothing to do with game size. You could have a 22GB 1 hour game if it contained enough assets (no re-used textures, amazingly hi-res textures, etc). Likewise you could have a never ending game for a few KB (Tetris anyone?) so please stop with the Unharted, Heavenly Sword stuff - size is down to content, not number of levels or duration of game. c) compression sure helps but it also has downsides - resources used to decompress for one. It's a developer choice as well. If a developers wants to use uncompressed sound or whatever so that for the lucky few the experience is amazing then that affects size a great deal d) Mulitple disks would also pose problems for a 'streaming' game such as GTA IV I would have thought - after all the whole idea is you drive around with nary a loading screen, not park your car and change disks! Personally I prefer games to try and stick to one disk if they can. I think the points made are valid and provide a nice summary of the two consoles right now: a) 360 very easy to develop for and powerful graphics but no HDD and need for multiple disks if you go above a certain size b) PS3 harder to develop for and powerful graphics with HDD and larger capacity for storage on disk |
If we were on Slashdot I would mod you insightful.
