| Kwaad said: I'm gonna say this. More is more. Less is less. That is my opinion on this. EDIT: 5 'worlds' are usually all the 'texture' worlds in a game. That is less. A massive game would have 10-20 texture 'worlds' Now you do have to compress the data. That is common sense. If you dont, your stupid. STUPID. More is more. Less is less. Just becuase you can fit a texture in 100k instead of 150k means NOTHING to me. I would rather it be on 3 discs and have 2 textures instead of 1. |
You clearly aren't taking RAM into account here. Let's assume you have 100 such textures loaded at once. That's an extra 5MB that could be used for lighting, physics, AI, draw distance, or greater texture detail. And for graphic/performance intensive games, like God of War, a few misplaced KB is a waste.
That's the real thing with blu-ray. In order to fit the most game data into the PS3's memory, which is less than the 360's*, the game data on the disc has to be as effectively sized as possible. So it would take a hell of a lot of content, that has to be streamed on the same disc (as San Andreas was last gen) to justify putting a game on blu-ray. Unfortunately, that would also make a game extremely expensive, so the game would have to sell well, or be squeezed into the 360 anyway to make up lost revenue.
*Teh PS3 has 256MB of XDR RAM, which is great for FMVs (such as blu-ray), and nice for non-graphical game data, but not so great for graphics, and 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM, which is great for graphics, and also good for non-graphical game data, but it can't be used as such by the PS3.
The 360 has 512MB GDDR3, which can use as much for non-graphical data, or graphical data as it wants. Plus 10MB of high speed EDRAM is set aside for frame and z buffering, while the PS3 has to manage those in the VRAM.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Essay Pro