Question - are people really arguing about whether more space means better games or not?

If so pls stop - you're all looking very foolish.

Storage space has close to zero to do with making good games.

Storage space is only a factor for content - it also has nothing to do with length. Elite was tiny and as it generated random missions effectively had no end. More recently Oblivion essentially had no end and fit on a DVD - you keep going back to caves the game will happily keep supplying foes.

More storage space of course means that games can have (if desired) more content.

More content does not make a game better either.

The simple fact is that a good game can fit on DVD and BR (and CD and even on a phone - Tetris anyone?).

However, if you have a good game and want a lot of content then a bigger disk clearly means you can have more content before you need more disks.

As 360 is DVD and PS3 BR then PS3 does natively allow more space for developers (whether they use it or need it is another matter). So for example you could have a PS3 version of Oblivion with more textures, characters, etc. so that guards don't look so similar all the time, there is more variety, etc. but of course that would all cost more and developers will ponder whether the game would actually sell better and whether it really makes core game better (my view, it wouldn't make it better but it would make it more immersive).

Everyone needs to stop the attempt to push their own bias (all games can fit on DVD or all games will need BR space)  IMHO and realize that its all down to the developers and the game, but that yes more space does allow for more content (how could it not? And pls don't be so dumb as to quote compression as that simply means the bigger disk could now hold even more compressed data that the smaller disk).

How can this not be clear?

Reasonable said: Question - are people really arguing about whether more space means better games or not? If so pls stop - you're all looking very foolish. Storage space has close to zero to do with making good games. Storage space is only a factor for content - it also has nothing to do with length. Elite was tiny and as it generated random missions effectively had no end. More recently Oblivion essentially had no end and fit on a DVD - you keep going back to caves the game will happily keep supplying foes. More storage space of course means that games can have (if desired) more content. More content does not make a game better either. The simple fact is that a good game can fit on DVD and BR (and CD and even on a phone - Tetris anyone?). However, if you have a good game and want a lot of content then a bigger disk clearly means you can have more content before you need more disks. As 360 is DVD and PS3 BR then PS3 does natively allow more space for developers (whether they use it or need it is another matter). So for example you could have a PS3 version of Oblivion with more textures, characters, etc. so that guards don't look so similar all the time, there is more variety, etc. but of course that would all cost more and developers will ponder whether the game would actually sell better and whether it really makes core game better (my view, it wouldn't make it better but it would make it more immersive). Everyone needs to stop the attempt to push their own bias (all games can fit on DVD or all games will need BR space) IMHO and realize that its all down to the developers and the game, but that yes more space does allow for more content (how could it not? And pls don't be so dumb as to quote compression as that simply means the bigger disk could now hold even more compressed data that the smaller disk). How can this not be clear?

Whilst not quite completely spot on (i'm struggling with your "immersive" comment, you really should try Bioshock or Mass Effect), this post was the closest i've ever come to comprehensively agreeing with you.

Well done, your getting more and more reasonable. 

starcraft said: So what your telling me is that your going to take the word of highly biased Sony first-party developers over those of Microsoft's and third-party developers? Any reason for that? And do you want to actually deal with some of the facts I posted? Or are you conceding that I was right about all of them?;) If you are conceding that, I'd say what you just posted is fairly debunked.

 Insomniac are completely independent

Gears was awfully short, but I think the problem has more to do with high development costs than low disc space. This is both because a lot of games are already using several DVDs, and there are quite a few games on the PS3 that are awfully short like Heavenly Sword, Uncharted etc.

Munkeh111 said: starcraft said: So what your telling me is that your going to take the word of highly biased Sony first-party developers over those of Microsoft's and third-party developers? Any reason for that? And do you want to actually deal with some of the facts I posted? Or are you conceding that I was right about all of them?;) If you are conceding that, I'd say what you just posted is fairly debunked. Insomniac are completely independent

Wait they are second-party right?

Sorry, but essentially what i'm saying still stands.  They are not exactly impartial. 

 

you guys are argueing as if all this is what really sells games. advanced textures, compression, unreal engine blah blah blah. to the hardcore audience maybe this matters, but the hardcore audience aren't the majority in the gaming industry. that's why the wii is doing what it's doing. the wii is not even half as powerful as the ps3/360, yet it does what it's supposed to do. ps3/360 are bragging about having the biggest balls, but the wii is getting all the action.

starcraft said: Reasonable said: Question - are people really arguing about whether more space means better games or not? If so pls stop - you're all looking very foolish. Storage space has close to zero to do with making good games. Storage space is only a factor for content - it also has nothing to do with length. Elite was tiny and as it generated random missions effectively had no end. More recently Oblivion essentially had no end and fit on a DVD - you keep going back to caves the game will happily keep supplying foes. More storage space of course means that games can have (if desired) more content. More content does not make a game better either. The simple fact is that a good game can fit on DVD and BR (and CD and even on a phone - Tetris anyone?). However, if you have a good game and want a lot of content then a bigger disk clearly means you can have more content before you need more disks. As 360 is DVD and PS3 BR then PS3 does natively allow more space for developers (whether they use it or need it is another matter). So for example you could have a PS3 version of Oblivion with more textures, characters, etc. so that guards don't look so similar all the time, there is more variety, etc. but of course that would all cost more and developers will ponder whether the game would actually sell better and whether it really makes core game better (my view, it wouldn't make it better but it would make it more immersive). Everyone needs to stop the attempt to push their own bias (all games can fit on DVD or all games will need BR space) IMHO and realize that its all down to the developers and the game, but that yes more space does allow for more content (how could it not? And pls don't be so dumb as to quote compression as that simply means the bigger disk could now hold even more compressed data that the smaller disk). How can this not be clear? Whilst not quite completely spot on (i'm struggling with your "immersive" comment, you really should try Bioshock or Mass Effect), this post was the closest i've ever come to comprehensively agreeing with you. Well done, your getting more and more reasonable.

We're saying same thing here I think.  Oblivion is a good example in that (as with most games of its type) the world is so large there is repetition of textures, character models etc.  I believe I saw some small nitpicks of Mass Effect also noting repetition of environments here and there.  So my point is sure with more space you can always have more varied content - for example in Oblivion every character model could be unique, there could be ten times the tree models, etc.  which for that type of game would make it a little more immersive (its already very immersive) as it would reduce to nothing the times when the repition just lets the seams show a little.

However I doubt this would really add much nor would it make core game any 'better' IMHO.  Also it would cost developers a lot more so I'm not sure they want to spend the money quite yet to fill BR worth of hi-res textures just for the sake of more variety. 

Reasonable said: starcraft said: Reasonable said: Question - are people really arguing about whether more space means better games or not? If so pls stop - you're all looking very foolish. Storage space has close to zero to do with making good games. Storage space is only a factor for content - it also has nothing to do with length. Elite was tiny and as it generated random missions effectively had no end. More recently Oblivion essentially had no end and fit on a DVD - you keep going back to caves the game will happily keep supplying foes. More storage space of course means that games can have (if desired) more content. More content does not make a game better either. The simple fact is that a good game can fit on DVD and BR (and CD and even on a phone - Tetris anyone?). However, if you have a good game and want a lot of content then a bigger disk clearly means you can have more content before you need more disks. As 360 is DVD and PS3 BR then PS3 does natively allow more space for developers (whether they use it or need it is another matter). So for example you could have a PS3 version of Oblivion with more textures, characters, etc. so that guards don't look so similar all the time, there is more variety, etc. but of course that would all cost more and developers will ponder whether the game would actually sell better and whether it really makes core game better (my view, it wouldn't make it better but it would make it more immersive). Everyone needs to stop the attempt to push their own bias (all games can fit on DVD or all games will need BR space) IMHO and realize that its all down to the developers and the game, but that yes more space does allow for more content (how could it not? And pls don't be so dumb as to quote compression as that simply means the bigger disk could now hold even more compressed data that the smaller disk). How can this not be clear? Whilst not quite completely spot on (i'm struggling with your "immersive" comment, you really should try Bioshock or Mass Effect), this post was the closest i've ever come to comprehensively agreeing with you. Well done, your getting more and more reasonable.  We're saying same thing here I think.  Oblivion is a good example in that (as with most games of its type) the world is so large there is repetition of textures, character models etc.  I believe I saw some small nitpicks of Mass Effect also noting repetition of environments here and there.  So my point is sure with more space you can always have more varied content - for example in Oblivion every character model could be unique, there could be ten times the tree models, etc.  which for that type of game would make it a little more immersive (its already very immersive) as it would reduce to nothing the times when the repition just lets the seams show a little. However I doubt this would really add much nor would it make core game any 'better' IMHO.  Also it would cost developers a lot more so I'm not sure they want to spend the money quite yet to fill BR worth of hi-res textures just for the sake of more variety.

No Reasonable, your not saying the same thing. You are being Reasonable, Starcraft is not :p

Starcraft, is there a time where having a BR drive in a console can produce any measure of a better game?

I will reword it.

Could, due to the deliver medium, developers make a better game on the PS3 then can be done on the 360?

The obvious answer is yes. Starcraft's won't be.

The points above is all we have been arguing. Not that all games need BR, or that BR alone makes anything better, but that giving developers the opportunity to deliver there products on larger format medium opens up opportunities.

I have been saying that giving developers more tools means the opportunity for better games. Starcraft and TotalWar are taking the position that having a 50gig delivery system over a 9 gig one is giving developers nothing at all.

TheRealMafoo said: LordTheNightKnight said: TheRealMafoo said: jake_the_fake1 said: Lost Odyssey is stored on 4 DVDs, this games could have fit on just 1 blu-ray disc because the capacity on 1 BD is their to allow such a big game to just fit, the same thing can be said about blue dragon which stores it's game on 3 DVD's, all I'm saying is that these 2 games validate the usefulness of the capacity the blu-ray discs have. My opinion, is if you delivered those exact same games on one disk and not 3 or 4, it offers very little to nothing to the gamer. But where Blu-Ray really does make a difference, is it holds a lot more then 3 or 4 DVD's worth of information. If the creators of Lost Odyssey had the Blu-Ray to work with, I bet they would have delivered a different game. They would have cut less corners. I am sure if they were given the space, they would have filled it up, and the conumer would have benefited from it. That's where Blu-Ray makes a difference. You forget filling up the space would mean more time and resources, which would mean more cost. What if the only had the money to make the game they made. Furthermore, what corners do you assume were cut? And please don't give me story elements. Those could have been left out for artistic reasons, not storage reasons. I am sorry, but you are arguing from the position that more space on a delivery medium would never offer an advantage, and that's just not the case. As for a direct answer to your question, splitting Lost odyssey on multiple disks cost money too. If they had just put it on one disk, that would have saved them money that could be used to better the game in some way. Look, adding a limitation is never better then removing it. 50gig is better then 9gig. period. Choose to take advantage of it or not, but saying it's meaningless is just a poor argument.

That is not what I argued. You didn't read my comment right.

 

I wrote that more content would cost money, even if they would fit.

And how does multiple discs cost money? Do you mean the physical cost of the discs (which is still a fraction than one blu-ray), or do you mean programming the breaks, which would just (require planning, not major development time?.

ultraslick said: totalwar23 said: TheRealMafoo said: The BR is locked at a total speed of 9MBs. The DVD is 10.6 to 4.4. So at it's best i's 1.6 faster, but at it's worst it's 4.6 slower. I don't know if the change is linear, as the disk speed changes on the DVD drive, but if it is linear, that would put no more then 1 gig at a faster speed. Also, it's rumored that the BR in the PS3 can do 100 and 200 gig disks when they come out. If that's true, I would assume the read times go up, as the disk spins at a relatively slow rate now. It would probably go up 50-100%. As for the oblivion article, I have seen it. I also head it was blown out of context. The PS3 version loads faster then the 360, and has longer draw distance, and less load screens. This would indicate that not only does it load faster, but it loads more data in that time. not sure how that could be posable if the drive is slower. (optimized code maybe). i can't find the article, but it said that the main reason they duplicated data, is that they had the space, and it improved load times, so why not? Even if it was already faster loading then the 360, if you can improve load times by using space you don't otherwise need, why not do it? See, I hear differently (devs put their biggest data on the faster load speed) but seeing as I don't know how much data the outer layers can stored, I can't make an argument. Also, yes, they solved the problem by making duplicate data but that was a solution to the PS3's slow drive speed (Oblivion PS3 was delayed possibly due to this problem). the quote was "the PS3 Oblivion team compensated for the slower drive by duplicating data across the Blu-ray disc, making it faster to find and load." And Oblivion in general was actually superior to the Xbox 360 version. There's also the fact for Capcom, Lost Planet and DMC4 needed hard drive installations for the game to run on the PS3. You could also say hey, since the PS3 has a hard drive, why not use it? But if Capcom was able to makethe games run on the 360 without needing a hard drive, why couldn't they have done it with the PS3? They could have done this with the PS3. You seem to be forgetting the advantages that a hard drive install brings with it. But I agree, the choice should exist on the PS3 to not mandatorily install the game on the HD. But if developers can note advantages like no loading times because of the HD install, then there is really no reason for them to justify putting more dev time into the game to make it have the option of not installing it. This debate must be conceded from each side in some ways. Yes Blu-Ray is an advantage. At this point in the lifecycle of this generation developers typically do not use Blu-Ray to its fullest potential by increasing story lines and gameplay drastically becuse of it. What they do though is include lossless 7.1 audio, workarounds for better load times, additional content (as seen in Stranglehold). The point being, Would Gears 2 benefit from Blu-Ray? - Absolutely. But not so much in some of the ways in which the original post suggests. Gears 3 is far enough out however, that IMO Blu-Ray could become a distinct advantage to accomplishing longer gameplay in addition to better audio/graphics/content/features. And Gears 2 could absolutely Run just as good if not better on the PS3, but there is the fundamental paradox being that it would take a lot more dev time to accomplish such a thing. Either way, I guarantee it won't happen for Gears 2. And if Microsoft knows what is good for them- they will secure what is now the platforms largest exclusive franchise for the third iteration of the game.

What, why would I forget the advantages of a hard drive installed? Now the original point was made that the PS3 Bluray drive had a faster read speed than DVD9. Now considering that Capcom or somebody there stated that they pretty much wanted both versions to be exactly the same, if they could make the load times for the PS3 the same or faster than the Xbox 360 version without a HD install, why wouldn't they (also factoring in that it was mandatory and not optional, it couldn't be that the installed was needed for the game to run well?)?