Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
Its still not required, not for this generation anyways. Even with DVDs filling up there is still plenty of room for very large modern games on one DVD. The Blu-Ray player was not put in the PS3 for the sake of making it a better game system. Its Sony's format, they were banking on the PS3 making the Blu-Ray format win the HD disc format war, and all its doing is making Sony not sell any consoles because of the increase in cost of the PS3. So no, its still not necessary in any way, and it was still a terrible choice on Sony's part.
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
Blu-Ray was, is, and always will be a terrible choice. Sorry, but this thread is not vindication for you.
As a 360 owner it makes me kind of a mad when I read this and then think that the PS3 version of Stranglehold is going to have the whole game PLUS Hard Boiled on it.
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
Blu-Ray was, is, and always will be a terrible choice. Sorry, but this thread is not vindication for you.
Perhaps you didn't hear me. Ha-fucking-ha. You're missing out on content (well, so am I, were I to purchase this game for MY 360) because DVD can't handle it. Blu-ray? Good choice. *fist pump*
Really, that's just there to piss you off, but man, you've had it coming.
I don't necessarily think that this vindicates Sony's Blu-Ray decision for this generation. While, yes, it does suck that developers are starting to struggle with fitting all of their content onto one DVD, I think the point is that it is just now becoming a problem, and even then, not a particularly troublesome one for the most part. At the very least, it doesn't seem, to me, to be enough of a problem to warrant an extra $100 - 200 overhead cost.
Two questions, though:
Would it be terribly hard to divide multiplayer and single player content onto their own respective DVD's, duplicating assets where needed?
Were the reports on the slow Blu-Ray read speed true (with the whole double loading Oblivion content onto the disc to make load times more bearable thing)? (This is an honest question, not thinly veiled flame bait)
First, lol.
Second, I don't see why they cannot compress a lot of this stuff, and then have it uncompress and install onto the hard drive, then load from there.
Because not every 360 has a HD, and thus, devs can't make games based around the existence of a HD.
That's a matter of MS making the HD optional being a bad decision, not the DVDs themselves being a bad decision.
I don't really see why you'd want lower compression on the actual medium though. Unless you're using some godlike compression that can choke a 360 it should still be much faster to uncompress them than it is to read the larger versions off the disc.
I'm definitely in favor of blu-ray capacity, but I really just honestly did not think the DVD limit would be hit by something *not* an RPG or Oblivion esque game.
I see Blu-Ray capacity as a fantastic thing, it's just to bad it limits who will be buying a PS3 due to the outlandish cost.
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
Blu-Ray was, is, and always will be a terrible choice. Sorry, but this thread is not vindication for you.
Perhaps you didn't hear me. Ha-fucking-ha. You're missing out on content (well, so am I, were I to purchase this game for MY 360) because DVD can't handle it. Blu-ray? Good choice. *fist pump*
Really, that's just there to piss you off, but man, you've had it coming.
Why would an RPG without FMVs hit it, though? PGR does because they use high resolution photographs of real places to recreate them (because it's easier than to model all those recognisable buildings in proper detail). Most other games simply tile the same set of textures though, including RPGs. And you'd need a heck of a lot of voice acting to fill up a DVD.
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
My belief is that Sony's disadvantage of Blu Ray's cost far outweighs MS's disadvantage of limited capacity.
Having said that, anyone who believed that DVD's capacity would not be strained this generation is being very naive. Looking at a typical PC install in the last two years would indicate this.
I am of the opinion that Microsoft looked at this issue, and decided that a high definition disc format would be too cost prohibitive to address that.
Monaro on
0
Options
mntorankusuI'm not sure how to use this thing....Registered Userregular
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
My belief is that Sony's disadvantage of Blu Ray's cost far outweighs MS's disadvantage of limited capacity.
Having said that, anyone who believed that DVD's capacity would not be strained this generation is being very naive. Looking at a typical PC install in the last two years would indicate this.
I am of the opinion that Microsoft looked at this issue, and decided that a high definition disc format would be too cost prohibitive to address that.
Sounds like the PGR devs aren't that great at working the lighting on the 360 and just didn't have a universal lighting pipeline but took the EA route and textured the city as if it was daytime already. That also kinda happens when you use photos to texture your buildings.
If they had bothered to write a new engine with universal lighting (see: Halo 3, Twilight Princess) they could change it from day to night without taking up any more space on the disc. It's a big deal over a developer's inability to work in the space provided. And as said before, DVD isn't really that constraining because if you honestly need the space you just print another disc.
Yeah, this is a corner case really, since
a) it's a racing game, so most content needs to be available without disc swaps and
b) they're taking shortcuts by using lit textures, rather than doing it themselves.
Paint, corner, etc.
Glal on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
My belief is that Sony's disadvantage of Blu Ray's cost far outweighs MS's disadvantage of limited capacity.
Having said that, anyone who believed that DVD's capacity would not be strained this generation is being very naive. Looking at a typical PC install in the last two years would indicate this.
I am of the opinion that Microsoft looked at this issue, and decided that a high definition disc format would be too cost prohibitive to address that.
What games for the "PC Install" made you think that DVD's would be strained? My recollection is that just about any game I've put on my computer in the last few years will fit nicely on a DVD, ready to play.
Medieval II: Total War filled up two DVDs and 10 gigs worth of hard drive space. That's the only two DVD game I've ever really played.
I'm confused as to why they need to put in two sets of textures for night and day. Can't they just make a generic surface and have the in-engine universal lighting system do its magic?
But that's mostly for MMOs that need a HDD for big updates.
Otherwise you limit your userbase if you require the HDD just so you can have an alternate time of day.
Well you don't limit the buyers by requiring a HDD. But rather put the night textures on there and say "bonus nighttime driving for users with an HDD". Then make it an option when you first put the disc in to copy the nighttime textures to the HDD.
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
My belief is that Sony's disadvantage of Blu Ray's cost far outweighs MS's disadvantage of limited capacity.
Having said that, anyone who believed that DVD's capacity would not be strained this generation is being very naive. Looking at a typical PC install in the last two years would indicate this.
I am of the opinion that Microsoft looked at this issue, and decided that a high definition disc format would be too cost prohibitive to address that.
What games for the "PC Install" made you think that DVD's would be strained? My recollection is that just about any game I've put on my computer in the last few years will fit nicely on a DVD, ready to play.
Here's what's on my HDD at the mo that takes up a decent amount of space:
Command & Conquer 3 - 5.65GB
Dawn of War - Dark Crusade - 4.44GB
IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 - 4.46GB
Oblivion - 5.54GB, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - 5.49GB Though has about 500MB of mods?
Supreme Commander - 8.51GB
There's others uninstalled with similar capacities (from memory). To be honest I have no idea what differentiates between a disc-only version for a console and HDD installation on a PC, storage-wise. But given that I have similar games in each genre that are only a year or two older, that on average are half the size, wouldn't it seem short sighted to not predict that constant rise in required storage space?
My point still stands. I reckon MS knew they'd hit it, but it would be too expensive to counter.
I also believe Sony knows what they're doing, in that they believe the PS3 is intended to last a long time, and will hit it's stride when the other two machines start to look obsolete. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think that's what they think? Either that or they thought the PS3 would arrive on the crest of the media revolution like when PS2/DVD hit mainstream, but got their timing wrong.
Remember when the Dreamcast was nearing release and Sega said it would be too expensive to put a DVD drive in it, despite people's concern about capacity? Or was that more about movie playback?
Man, there's no reason you'd ever need a hard drive or an integrated disc medium that can store more than a DVD.
Ever.
Seriously: Nelson-style HA-HA. I'm not generally one for a victory dance, but for all the dinguses (dingi?) who blathered on about Blu-ray being a terrible choice and something that would never be required in video games: Up yours.
I mean that in a polite way, but damn, that feels good.
Blu-Ray was, is, and always will be a terrible choice. Sorry, but this thread is not vindication for you.
Perhaps you didn't hear me. Ha-fucking-ha. You're missing out on content (well, so am I, were I to purchase this game for MY 360) because DVD can't handle it. Blu-ray? Good choice. *fist pump*
Really, that's just there to piss you off, but man, you've had it coming.
Oh don't worry! I'm not pissed off at all. I couldn't really care less if the PGR4 developers completely failed to use proper lighting techniques in their game and have to use storage capacity as a scapegoat for poor design decisions.
And a lot of good that extra Blu-Ray disc capacity will do Sony when developers just give up on the PS3 entirely!
My main problem with Blu-Ray isn't that the technology is necessarily bad. It's just unnecessary...they could have adopted HD-DVD. But Sony has this 40-year obsession with proprietary formats. I've no doubt that Sony would have pushed Blu-Ray even if HD-DVD had ended up with a larger base capacity. So, yeah, I'm against every attempt of Sony's to divide the market. They've done it countless times and it's always wasteful, and now they are fucking with an industry I really care about, where they can do a lot of harm: video games. The other main problem I have is that the PS3 sucks and its library sucks and every game they've announced for it sucks. You Sony supporters love to pull the "well, Blu-Ray is so BIG" trump card all the time because, really, that's the only leg you have left to stand on. Trumpeting this hueg capacity!!111 isn't going to magically make good games appear on the PS3 or make the PS3 a good system. THAT'S what they should have focused on, instead of PR work and pushing this over-expensive proprietary Blu-Ray nonsense.
It seems to me like developers really don't give a shit about the bigger capacity that the PS3 offers. It offers very little of anything else that might be important. Like customers.
The guys who made .kkrieger should make a consulting firm.
It should be called "seriously guys make your textures even a bit smaller for fucks sake look at us we did it jesus."
Seriously, I'd rather the solution to game bloat not be an entire new format every few years. CD and DVD work because they happen to fit certain media that have a huge user base really well. HD-Blu-Ultra-DVD isn't something worth paying for for a lot of people. And the next step up will be even less worth it.
Here's what's on my HDD at the mo that takes up a decent amount of space:
Command & Conquer 3 - 5.65GB
Dawn of War - Dark Crusade - 4.44GB
IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 - 4.46GB
Oblivion - 5.54GB, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - 5.49GB Though has about 500MB of mods?
Supreme Commander - 8.51GB
There's others uninstalled with similar capacities (from memory). To be honest I have no idea what differentiates between a disc-only version for a console and HDD installation on a PC, storage-wise. But given that I have similar games in each genre that are only a year or two older, that on average are half the size, wouldn't it seem short sighted to not predict that constant rise in required storage space?
My point still stands. I reckon MS knew they'd hit it, but it would be too expensive to counter.
I also believe Sony knows what they're doing, in that they believe the PS3 is intended to last a long time, and will hit it's stride when the other two machines start to look obsolete. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think that's what they think? Either that or they thought the PS3 would arrive on the crest of the media revolution like when PS2/DVD hit mainstream, but got their timing wrong.
Remember when the Dreamcast was nearing release and Sega said it would be too expensive to put a DVD drive in it, despite people's concern about capacity? Or was that more about movie playback?
DVD player prices dropped a hell of a lot from the time the PS2 came out (Not as much as the PS2 itself). The PS2's DVD drive was also of very questionable quality. That's entirely another debate in itself.
I understand that the 360 is more than likely going to be like the PS1: A lot of multiple-disc games. I didn't think it would be this fast, however, which is what puzzles me the most. How could games hop from 5-6 gigs to needing well over the 8 or 9 gigs provided on the DVD9 disc?
The guys who made .kkrieger should make a consulting firm.
It should be called "seriously guys make your textures even a bit smaller for fucks sake look at us we did it jesus."
Seriously, I'd rather the solution to game bloat not be an entire new format every few years. CD and DVD work because they happen to fit certain media that have a huge user base really well. HD-Blu-Ultra-DVD isn't something worth paying for for a lot of people. And the next step up will be even less worth it.
I thought that exact thing as I was reading through this. I think this pretty much boils down to "lazy" development. It seems like they have not taken a single step to rein in the size of the assets, opting instead to hit some kind of graphical quality mark. I think in this case, maybe they barked up the wrong tree and should maybe rethink their texturing/lighting system as it stands now.
The thing that saddens me most in all this is that all the extra work and bloat amounts to "OOO shiny!" for the first few days, then a sudden fit of depression when you realize the content has not recieved as much attention as the glitz. Often because "We were forced to cut that content due to a long development cycle and a lack of space on the media."
The guys who made .kkrieger should make a consulting firm.
It should be called "seriously guys make your textures even a bit smaller for fucks sake look at us we did it jesus."
Wow, now you made me remember that game. Wasn't it the proof-of-concept FPS that had (at least) a Doom 3 level lighting and texture resolution, yet managed to keep itself under 80 kilobytes due to procedural rendering? Developers should really look to that game on how to compress textures.
I do remember it having a long load time, but only when you fire up the game.
I don't necessarily think that this vindicates Sony's Blu-Ray decision for this generation. While, yes, it does suck that developers are starting to struggle with fitting all of their content onto one DVD, I think the point is that it is just now becoming a problem, and even then, not a particularly troublesome one for the most part. At the very least, it doesn't seem, to me, to be enough of a problem to warrant an extra $100 - 200 overhead cost.
Two questions, though:
Would it be terribly hard to divide multiplayer and single player content onto their own respective DVD's, duplicating assets where needed?
Were the reports on the slow Blu-Ray read speed true (with the whole double loading Oblivion content onto the disc to make load times more bearable thing)? (This is an honest question, not thinly veiled flame bait)
1) I really can't imagine that would help much.
2) They were bullshit from the beginning. The PS3's BD drive is on average just as fast as the 360's drive. Oblivion did however duplicate some data (though according to Bethesda themselves, they didn't do it often) throughout the BD and it worked, the PS3 version reportedly loads quicker than the 360 version.
The guys who made .kkrieger should make a consulting firm.
It should be called "seriously guys make your textures even a bit smaller for fucks sake look at us we did it jesus."
Wow, now you made me remember that game. Wasn't it the proof-of-concept FPS that had (at least) a Doom 3 level lighting and texture resolution, yet managed to keep itself under 80 kilobytes due to procedural rendering? Developers should really look to that game on how to compress textures.
I do remember it having a long load time, but only when you fire up the game.
It wasn't really compression in the sense that they drew a texture and then crunched it down. They just generated textures using mathematical formulas.
Two different means to an end, but honestly some games could use procedural textures.
FyreWulff on
0
Options
SerpentSometimes Vancouver, BC, sometimes Brisbane, QLDRegistered Userregular
The guys who made .kkrieger should make a consulting firm.
It should be called "seriously guys make your textures even a bit smaller for fucks sake look at us we did it jesus."
Wow, now you made me remember that game. Wasn't it the proof-of-concept FPS that had (at least) a Doom 3 level lighting and texture resolution, yet managed to keep itself under 80 kilobytes due to procedural rendering? Developers should really look to that game on how to compress textures.
I do remember it having a long load time, but only when you fire up the game.
It wasn't really compression in the sense that they drew a texture and then crunched it down. They just generated textures using mathematical formulas.
Two different means to an end, but honestly some games could use procedural textures.
My main concern that the console is about to hits its 2nd birthday, and we are already having issues with capacity. Why not put some of the stuff on the DVD, and the rest offer as a (free) download. I'm not sure if there is any technical restrictions to this.
suadeo on
My 360 is [strike]back[/strike] [strike]bricked[/strike] back!
Controlling algorithmically generated content is ridiculously hard, and pretty much unfeasible for content that everyone knows by sight. Seriously, it would've been more practical for them to model, texture and properly light the whole place than use some sort of algorithm to generate textures whose final output is a world replica.
In case of .kkrieger they just came up with patterns that looked like metal/stone and used them, they didn't have to recreate the Mona Lisa with them.
Wait, so PGR doesn't create textures...they use high-res photographs?
That would go a long way to explaining why they don't have night and day maps.
The way Chromehounds did their maps should be the wave of the future.
Sure, you could use procedural textures to make a city. But would it end up being a very accurate representation of the city? I doubt it would look as much like the city would using actual photographs for the textures as they are doing now.
There is no great solution to this issue. Procedural textures would take away from some of the realism. More texture compression would take away from the prettiness. Disc-swapping would be a hassle for this type of game. The HDD isn't an option for many reasons.
I know Threepio can come across as overly fanboyish at times, but after seeing pages and pages of posts claiming that Blu-Ray is totally unneeded because we'll never need more than DVD9 can offer this gen, this is kinda like vindication for him.
Wait, so PGR doesn't create textures...they use high-res photographs?
That would go a long way to explaining why they don't have night and day maps.
The way Chromehounds did their maps should be the wave of the future.
You should look at Halo 3 screenshots. They are doing the universal lighting like I'm guessing Chromehounds did, so you have people going "why is Chief grey" when it's just because he's in weak lighting, and you can see his armor is green in direct sunlight/better lighting.
Yeah, this is a corner case really, since
a) it's a racing game, so most content needs to be available without disc swaps and
b) they're taking shortcuts by using lit textures, rather than doing it themselves.
Paint, corner, etc.
I would like to take a moment to say that they're not "taking shortcuts" by using lit textures. Certainly they're using separate texture maps and lightmaps ... but why? Because that's the only way to get a full global illumination solution in realtime, which is critical for making a photorealisitc outdoor environment.
The technique they use requires a lot of space, but it's far more photorealistic than any other technique out there.
EDIT: btw, they're not just slapping high resolution photos on these buildings either. They're using photos as source material to create high res textures without any lighting on them so that the lightmap can do its job later.
Posts
"PLEASE INSERT DISC 2 TO CONTINUE"
PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
Its still not required, not for this generation anyways. Even with DVDs filling up there is still plenty of room for very large modern games on one DVD. The Blu-Ray player was not put in the PS3 for the sake of making it a better game system. Its Sony's format, they were banking on the PS3 making the Blu-Ray format win the HD disc format war, and all its doing is making Sony not sell any consoles because of the increase in cost of the PS3. So no, its still not necessary in any way, and it was still a terrible choice on Sony's part.
Blu-Ray was, is, and always will be a terrible choice. Sorry, but this thread is not vindication for you.
PSN: TheSuperVillain
Perhaps you didn't hear me. Ha-fucking-ha. You're missing out on content (well, so am I, were I to purchase this game for MY 360) because DVD can't handle it. Blu-ray? Good choice. *fist pump*
Really, that's just there to piss you off, but man, you've had it coming.
Two questions, though:
I don't really see why you'd want lower compression on the actual medium though. Unless you're using some godlike compression that can choke a 360 it should still be much faster to uncompress them than it is to read the larger versions off the disc.
I'm definitely in favor of blu-ray capacity, but I really just honestly did not think the DVD limit would be hit by something *not* an RPG or Oblivion esque game.
I see Blu-Ray capacity as a fantastic thing, it's just to bad it limits who will be buying a PS3 due to the outlandish cost.
Jesus. You didn't put Blu-Ray in.
My belief is that Sony's disadvantage of Blu Ray's cost far outweighs MS's disadvantage of limited capacity.
Having said that, anyone who believed that DVD's capacity would not be strained this generation is being very naive. Looking at a typical PC install in the last two years would indicate this.
I am of the opinion that Microsoft looked at this issue, and decided that a high definition disc format would be too cost prohibitive to address that.
If they had bothered to write a new engine with universal lighting (see: Halo 3, Twilight Princess) they could change it from day to night without taking up any more space on the disc. It's a big deal over a developer's inability to work in the space provided. And as said before, DVD isn't really that constraining because if you honestly need the space you just print another disc.
a) it's a racing game, so most content needs to be available without disc swaps and
b) they're taking shortcuts by using lit textures, rather than doing it themselves.
Paint, corner, etc.
What games for the "PC Install" made you think that DVD's would be strained? My recollection is that just about any game I've put on my computer in the last few years will fit nicely on a DVD, ready to play.
I'm confused as to why they need to put in two sets of textures for night and day. Can't they just make a generic surface and have the in-engine universal lighting system do its magic?
Thoughts of a Part-Time Hobbyist - A Wargaming and RPG Blog
Otherwise you limit your userbase if you require the HDD just so you can have an alternate time of day.
Well you don't limit the buyers by requiring a HDD. But rather put the night textures on there and say "bonus nighttime driving for users with an HDD". Then make it an option when you first put the disc in to copy the nighttime textures to the HDD.
Here's what's on my HDD at the mo that takes up a decent amount of space:
Command & Conquer 3 - 5.65GB
Dawn of War - Dark Crusade - 4.44GB
IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 - 4.46GB
Oblivion - 5.54GB, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - 5.49GB Though has about 500MB of mods?
Supreme Commander - 8.51GB
There's others uninstalled with similar capacities (from memory). To be honest I have no idea what differentiates between a disc-only version for a console and HDD installation on a PC, storage-wise. But given that I have similar games in each genre that are only a year or two older, that on average are half the size, wouldn't it seem short sighted to not predict that constant rise in required storage space?
My point still stands. I reckon MS knew they'd hit it, but it would be too expensive to counter.
I also believe Sony knows what they're doing, in that they believe the PS3 is intended to last a long time, and will hit it's stride when the other two machines start to look obsolete. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think that's what they think? Either that or they thought the PS3 would arrive on the crest of the media revolution like when PS2/DVD hit mainstream, but got their timing wrong.
Remember when the Dreamcast was nearing release and Sega said it would be too expensive to put a DVD drive in it, despite people's concern about capacity? Or was that more about movie playback?
Oh don't worry! I'm not pissed off at all.
And a lot of good that extra Blu-Ray disc capacity will do Sony when developers just give up on the PS3 entirely!
My main problem with Blu-Ray isn't that the technology is necessarily bad. It's just unnecessary...they could have adopted HD-DVD. But Sony has this 40-year obsession with proprietary formats. I've no doubt that Sony would have pushed Blu-Ray even if HD-DVD had ended up with a larger base capacity. So, yeah, I'm against every attempt of Sony's to divide the market. They've done it countless times and it's always wasteful, and now they are fucking with an industry I really care about, where they can do a lot of harm: video games. The other main problem I have is that the PS3 sucks and its library sucks and every game they've announced for it sucks. You Sony supporters love to pull the "well, Blu-Ray is so BIG" trump card all the time because, really, that's the only leg you have left to stand on. Trumpeting this hueg capacity!!111 isn't going to magically make good games appear on the PS3 or make the PS3 a good system. THAT'S what they should have focused on, instead of PR work and pushing this over-expensive proprietary Blu-Ray nonsense.
It seems to me like developers really don't give a shit about the bigger capacity that the PS3 offers. It offers very little of anything else that might be important. Like customers.
It should be called "seriously guys make your textures even a bit smaller for fucks sake look at us we did it jesus."
Seriously, I'd rather the solution to game bloat not be an entire new format every few years. CD and DVD work because they happen to fit certain media that have a huge user base really well. HD-Blu-Ultra-DVD isn't something worth paying for for a lot of people. And the next step up will be even less worth it.
DVD player prices dropped a hell of a lot from the time the PS2 came out (Not as much as the PS2 itself). The PS2's DVD drive was also of very questionable quality. That's entirely another debate in itself.
I understand that the 360 is more than likely going to be like the PS1: A lot of multiple-disc games. I didn't think it would be this fast, however, which is what puzzles me the most. How could games hop from 5-6 gigs to needing well over the 8 or 9 gigs provided on the DVD9 disc?
I thought that exact thing as I was reading through this. I think this pretty much boils down to "lazy" development. It seems like they have not taken a single step to rein in the size of the assets, opting instead to hit some kind of graphical quality mark. I think in this case, maybe they barked up the wrong tree and should maybe rethink their texturing/lighting system as it stands now.
The thing that saddens me most in all this is that all the extra work and bloat amounts to "OOO shiny!" for the first few days, then a sudden fit of depression when you realize the content has not recieved as much attention as the glitz. Often because "We were forced to cut that content due to a long development cycle and a lack of space on the media."
Wow, now you made me remember that game. Wasn't it the proof-of-concept FPS that had (at least) a Doom 3 level lighting and texture resolution, yet managed to keep itself under 80 kilobytes due to procedural rendering? Developers should really look to that game on how to compress textures.
I do remember it having a long load time, but only when you fire up the game.
1) I really can't imagine that would help much.
2) They were bullshit from the beginning. The PS3's BD drive is on average just as fast as the 360's drive. Oblivion did however duplicate some data (though according to Bethesda themselves, they didn't do it often) throughout the BD and it worked, the PS3 version reportedly loads quicker than the 360 version.
It wasn't really compression in the sense that they drew a texture and then crunched it down. They just generated textures using mathematical formulas.
Two different means to an end, but honestly some games could use procedural textures.
pgr would not be one of those.
My 360 is [strike]back[/strike] [strike]bricked[/strike] back!
In case of .kkrieger they just came up with patterns that looked like metal/stone and used them, they didn't have to recreate the Mona Lisa with them.
That would go a long way to explaining why they don't have night and day maps.
The way Chromehounds did their maps should be the wave of the future.
There is no great solution to this issue. Procedural textures would take away from some of the realism. More texture compression would take away from the prettiness. Disc-swapping would be a hassle for this type of game. The HDD isn't an option for many reasons.
I know Threepio can come across as overly fanboyish at times, but after seeing pages and pages of posts claiming that Blu-Ray is totally unneeded because we'll never need more than DVD9 can offer this gen, this is kinda like vindication for him.
You should look at Halo 3 screenshots. They are doing the universal lighting like I'm guessing Chromehounds did, so you have people going "why is Chief grey" when it's just because he's in weak lighting, and you can see his armor is green in direct sunlight/better lighting.
I would like to take a moment to say that they're not "taking shortcuts" by using lit textures. Certainly they're using separate texture maps and lightmaps ... but why? Because that's the only way to get a full global illumination solution in realtime, which is critical for making a photorealisitc outdoor environment.
The technique they use requires a lot of space, but it's far more photorealistic than any other technique out there.
EDIT: btw, they're not just slapping high resolution photos on these buildings either. They're using photos as source material to create high res textures without any lighting on them so that the lightmap can do its job later.
Ever see Dark City?