By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Gears on blu ray

TheRealMafoo on 31 March 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:

But it doesn't have CDs. So it's still not valid. It's still just assuming that they should either accept blu-ray or they might as well downgrade the format they already have. Not valid.

They have DVD9 on the system, so that it what you have to discuss. And so far, all you've done is make wild guesses about what limitations multiple discs would impose, without actaully proving any of them.


What? Now you’re starting to not make any sense. CD it so DVD, what DVD is to Blu-Ray.

Any advantage moving from CD to DVD would buy you, holds true for moving from DVD to Blu-Ray.

If there was an advantage to moving to DVD, there is an advantage to moving to Blu-Ray. How can you not see this?

You’re a smart man. I am starting to think you either hate to lose an argument, or you don’t want to admit Sony did something that helps gaming. I doubt there is any other reason for you to keep this line of thinking going.



Around the Network
crumas2 on 31 March 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

But it doesn't have CDs. So it's still not valid. It's still just assuming that they should either accept blu-ray or they might as well downgrade the format they already have. Not valid.

They have DVD9 on the system, so that it what you have to discuss. And so far, all you've done is make wild guesses about what limitations multiple discs would impose, without actaully proving any of them.


What? Now you’re starting to not make any sense. CD it so DVD, what DVD is to Blu-Ray.

Any advantage moving from CD to DVD would buy you, holds true for moving from DVD to Blu-Ray.

If there was an advantage to moving to DVD, there is an advantage to moving to Blu-Ray. How can you not see this?

You’re a smart man. I am starting to think you either hate to lose an argument, or you don’t want to admit Sony did something that helps gaming. I doubt there is any other reason for you to keep this line of thinking going.


There is some truth to the analogy you're presenting.  DVD9 did indeed allow publishers to fit more content/better-textures/etc. on a single disk.

But the story is a little more complex.  Adding more content, better-textures, etc. costs more, so to really fill a 25 GB disk could be significant.  Also, the limits of the machine affect the need for the extra storage.  A Wii may or may not be able to really take advantage of a Blu-ray disc for game storage considering the 480p resolution, etc.  Considering Lost Odyssee comes on 4 DVD9 disks, it would have been nice to have it on Blu-ray, but I can't say it would have made the game much different other than avoiding a disk swap.  When I read one of the messages saying the code would have to be cloned across disks I thought about responding... the code is tiny compared with the art and music files, so the code overhead is small.

It would be cool if a PS3 games maker created a game sometime down the road that really took advantage of Blu-ray's capacity, but I haven't seen it yet.

 



LordTheNightKnight on 31 March 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

But it doesn't have CDs. So it's still not valid. It's still just assuming that they should either accept blu-ray or they might as well downgrade the format they already have. Not valid.

They have DVD9 on the system, so that it what you have to discuss. And so far, all you've done is make wild guesses about what limitations multiple discs would impose, without actaully proving any of them.


What? Now you’re starting to not make any sense. CD it so DVD, what DVD is to Blu-Ray.

Wrong. CD-Rom is 1/13 the size of DVD9, while DVD9 is 1/7 the size of blu-ray, so the size leap is not the same.

Any advantage moving from CD to DVD would buy you, holds true for moving from DVD to Blu-Ray.

Falacy. Game needs also have to be taken into account. A PS1 game would gain almost no benefit from being on blu-ray, since the system could not handle hi-rex textures and video.

The point here is that you are assuming that game needs automatically grow with storage. Fitting a game on a few discs is not proof the game needs have grown that far. It would take a lot more than that. When it gets that far, then you can talk, but it hasn't.

If there was an advantage to moving to DVD, there is an advantage to moving to Blu-Ray. How can you not see this?

See above. The advantage is minimal if there is no need. It would just mean more content, but that is not an advatnage unless the cost of that content would be minimized, and blu-ray cannot do that. 

You’re a smart man. I am starting to think you either hate to lose an argument, or you don’t want to admit Sony did something that helps gaming. I doubt there is any other reason for you to keep this line of thinking going.

You just really don't want to see my point. I am not claiming blu-ray won't be needed later on. I'm asking you to prove that it NOW is needed, and you have not done that.


 



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

TheRealMafoo on 31 March 2008

I'm done.



LordTheNightKnight on 31 March 2008

And you claim I hate to lose an argument? If you can't think of a reason it's needed now, just suck it up and admit it. Then wait and see if the need will show up eventually, as games get bigger. It might even show up at the end of the 360's life, but it really isn't showing up now.



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

Around the Network
FJ-Warez on 31 March 2008

Wrong. CD-Rom is 1/13 the size of DVD9, while DVD9 is 1/7 the size of blu-ray, so the size leap is not the same.

Isn't a DVD9 1/3 of a single layer Bluray or 1/6 Of a double layer br??? 

Just wondering :P 



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
totalwar23 on 31 March 2008
FJ-Warez said:

Wrong. CD-Rom is 1/13 the size of DVD9, while DVD9 is 1/7 the size of blu-ray, so the size leap is not the same.

Isn't a DVD9 1/3 of a single layer Bluray or 1/6 Of a double layer br???

Just wondering :P


 and isn't a CD 1/11-12 the size of a DL DVD?



LordTheNightKnight on 31 March 2008
FJ-Warez said:

Wrong. CD-Rom is 1/13 the size of DVD9, while DVD9 is 1/7 the size of blu-ray, so the size leap is not the same.

Isn't a DVD9 1/3 of a single layer Bluray or 1/6 Of a double layer br???

Just wondering :P


One DVD layer is just under 1/5 the capacity of a single blu-ray layer. It's still less of a leap than over CD-ROM, which had nearly seven times the capacity on a single DVD layer.



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

FJ-Warez on 31 March 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:
FJ-Warez said:

Wrong. CD-Rom is 1/13 the size of DVD9, while DVD9 is 1/7 the size of blu-ray, so the size leap is not the same.

Isn't a DVD9 1/3 of a single layer Bluray or 1/6 Of a double layer br???

Just wondering :P


One DVD layer is just under 1/5 the capacity of a single blu-ray layer. It's still less of a leap than over CD-ROM, which had nearly seven times the capacity on a single DVD layer.


 Oh yes, Single layer DVDs are just 1/6 of a Single layer bluray, but I was wondering about the DL DVD or DVD9... :)



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
eliasg on 31 March 2008
Tird fergesson said:
Legend11 said:
Not to put the PS3 down but the game is using Unreal Engine 3, actually an enhanced version of it called Unreal Engine 3.5, and the engine simply runs better on the 360. Considering this game will likely push it harder than any game has in the past it could have nasty framerate issues on the PS3.

Also there's nothing stopping the game from being bigger this time around on the 360 as disc space != game time. The game could be on one dual layer DVD disc and still take twice as long to complete. And there's nothing stopping them from using 2 dual layer DVDs if they have issues with space for the game.

Finally it really wouldn't make sense for Epic to build the game around a blu-ray disc because the PS3 would never be able to sell as many copies of the game as the 360. The game simply seems to appeal to the 360 fanbase a lot more.

Honestly, I realize that Gears will never come to the PS3 and you're right about the fact that it would appeal to 360 owners more, but I can pretty much garentee that Gears 2 will not be very long, perhaps shorter and it will be due to the lack of storage space. I'm also pretty sure that the first game was on a duel layer dvd. Anyway, one thing about you're first statement, Gears 2 would run perfectly on the PS3. Unreal tournament 3 ran without any framerate issues and the additions to the third engine (destructible environments, more enemies on screen...) are all tasks that the cpu's will handle. I will also reiterate that the PS3 has 8 cores running at 3.2 GHz which is more than enough for anything. The general look of the game isn't going to change drastically and I'm using the first engine to the second as proof. They essentially looked the same. The only time the PS3 has framerate issues is when developers like EA get lazy when porting titles.


 and especialy stupid KONAMI with PES2008



 XBOX360

Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad