Print

[PS3Scene]

2GB levels in Killzone 2 and running in 720p 30 fps Posted by XanTium | 26-8-2007 23:40 EST

From psu.com: Firstly, each level will make up a whopping 2 gigabytes. That's about half a DVDs worth of storage...which is alot. Obviously, this is why it's on Blu-ray, but it may account for the current slow down at checkpoints and the like. Also, due to the sheer detail and effects crammed down the Cell and RSXs proverbial throat, the game will run 30 fps, and will ‘only' be at 720p. The detail is so high in fact, that the amount of polygons used in one soldiers face is roughly the amount used in one entire Killzone 1 level. Full Story: psu.com

[blackchild1101]

Amazing...

[SpiderX1016]

This going to be on a Dual Layer Bluray?

[bloodyorgasm555]

wOw, after reading that i think i dropped one in my pants xD

[epsilon72]

I would like to know what they did to get one level to take up 2GB of data.

(now, if the levels are of Turok 2 length I could understand somewhat, but I doubt that they will be)

[elmo_sni]

yeah turok levels are no joke... lol that was a great game btw, awesome time killer.


i'd also really love to know where most of that 2gbs is going towards... i won't be suprised if most of it is sound files, with all the diff languages and such, but who knows?  /shrug

[Kamasutra318]

QUOTE(epsilon72 @ Aug 27 2007, 12:49 AM)

I would like to know what they did to get one level to take up 2GB of data.

(now, if the levels are of Turok 2 length I could understand somewhat, but I doubt that they will be)

http://www.gamespot....video-feature-2 is where this is mentioned and gives an idea of the actual size of the level. The video is rather long though.

[dvsone]

If it was 1080p maybe I would believe it.

[mlmadmax]

The graphics can be the best ever, it can have more polygons than any shooter ever made but if the gameplay sucks who cares.

I kind of wish people would just let the game speak for itself when it is released and stop cramming technical babble down peoples throats.

[lmaolmao]

QUOTE(dvsone)

If it was 1080p maybe I would believe it.

wow,  how wrong could you be!

it doesnt matter what resolution it runs in, the data files will take up the same space.

for example UT2k4 doesnt magically take up less space if you play it in 320*240  nor does it consume your whole hard disc if you play at 1600*1200.

and by your quote it can be concluded that you believe someone who buys bioshock on the xbox360 for example, would have more data on their disc if it ran at 1080p than someone who runs it on an old black and white tv.

This post has been edited by lmaolmao: Aug 27 2007, 09:20 AM

[dvsone]

QUOTE(lmaolmao @ Aug 27 2007, 09:16 AM)

wow,  how wrong could you be!

it doesnt matter what resolution it runs in, the data files will take up the same space.

for example UT2k4 doesnt magically take up less space if you play it in 320*240  nor does it consume your whole hard disc if you play at 1600*1200.

and by your quote it can be concluded that you believe someone who buys bioshock on the xbox360 for example, would have more data on their disc if it ran at 1080p than someone who runs it on an old black and white tv.

Your talking about scaling. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure most textures are made in the native resolution of the game. If a game is native 1080p, most of the textures (if not all) will be in 1080p. And a 1080p texture is 3 times larger than a 720p texture.

[Mojiba]

Is this the only thing that they have to say about the game right now? That it can only run on the mighty Cell and only storaged on a Blu-ray disc? Is that it? This guys are developing a game or promoting hardware? Is this the same thing as Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom, Lair and Heavenly Sword that were supposed to unleash the hidden ultimate power of the Cell through its absolutely necessary to games Blu-ray disc, and do not survived all the hype build around them, and none of this hardware specs were translated to the game experience?

Come on, stop babbling about the hardware and focus on trying to do great games that really justify buying that Blu-ray player disguised as a console.

[anonim1979]

QUOTE(dvsone @ Aug 27 2007, 09:30 AM)

Your talking about scaling. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure most textures are made in the native resolution of the game. If a game is native 1080p, most of the textures (if not all) will be in 1080p. And a 1080p texture is 3 times larger than a 720p texture.

1080 is 2x number of pixels than 720 (~2M vs ~1M)

The texures are made in fairly low quality and size so you can cram them into memory (they are commpressed at production stage (read about DTX etc) - LOSSY compressed, keept that way on disc,keept that way in memory, hardware decompressed in GPU)
256MB-32MB in case of PS3 if you don't mess with using main memory 256MB-48MB (or less, data for 1.8x)

256x256  , 512x512 for example is typical texture size.
In much hardware the max would be 4096x4096 ?

So what the game runs at has nearly no meaning.
1080p in MOST CASESS would mean WORSE TEXTURES as GPU has more problems with bandwitch and some cuts are requied.

---
PS.
Heavenly Sword UK Review
http://ps3.ign.com/a...5/815031p2.html

10GB of sound , vast levels, bluray FTW!, etc etc
And what?
6 hours of gameplay ? Boring? Short? 3 hours of sword fighting ?

And Bioshock - 6GB of data, they left space on DVD  
20h of gameplay, superb sound , speech, textures, etc.

Less Bluray propaganda more proofs - GAMES!

[d-range]

QUOTE(Mojiba @ Aug 27 2007, 12:36 PM)

Is this the only thing that they have to say about the game right now? That it can only run on the mighty Cell and only storaged on a Blu-ray disc? Is that it?

No, they're saying the blew up the data size of the levels to 2 GB's by storing them uncompressed, because they don't want a Blu-Ray disc that's only half-full. Now the levels load 5 times slower, because reading uncompressed data from an optical drive is much slower than reading compressed data and uncompressing it to RAM on the fly. They're saying that, and that they used so many polygons that the game runs like crap on the mighty Cell, even when it is not rendering in 1080p (you know, the uber-HD resolution that was so friggin essential for a games console). Most likely all of this is because the GPU doesn't have the triangle throughput and bandwidth to cope with all those fancy polygons in the character model's faces. But we already knew all of this.

QUOTE(Mojiba @ Aug 27 2007, 12:36 PM)

Come on, stop babbling about the hardware and focus on trying to do great games that really justify buying that Blu-ray player disguised as a console.

Agreed... It's not like the PS3 is a bad console because the hardware sucks or anything, but Sony needs to stop pretending like it is some kind of super-computer. If it really *is* so great, and Blu-Ray really *is* a necessity for great games, we'll all see for ourselves when these games are here. Until then, they should just STFU about data size, polygon counts and all the other yaddayadda.

[Chancer]

QUOTE(Mojiba @ Aug 27 2007, 11:36 AM)

 Is this the same thing as Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom, Lair and Heavenly Sword that were supposed to unleash the hidden ultimate power of the Cell through its absolutely necessary to games Blu-ray disc, and do not survived all the hype build around them, and none of this hardware specs were translated to the game experience?

Come on, stop babbling about the hardware and focus on trying to do great games that really justify buying that Blu-ray player disguised as a console.

I think you ought to stop babbling, especially as regards games that have not yet been released and that you have not played yet. Some people are interested in the tech specs. If this was a 360 we were talking you would all be creaming yourselves over technical babble.

QUOTE

10GB of sound , vast levels, bluray FTW!, etc etc
And what?
6 hours of gameplay ? Boring? Short? 3 hours of sword fighting ?

And Bioshock - 6GB of data, they left space on DVD blink.gif
20h of gameplay, superb sound , speech, textures, etc.

 Personal opinion. Try judging a game when you have played it rather than basing your opinions on a website review. No substitute for real live hands on play over a period of time.

QUOTE

If it really *is* so great, and Blu-Ray really *is* a necessity for great games, we'll all see for ourselves when these games are here. Until then, they should just STFU about data size, polygon counts and all the other yaddayadda.

 The same could be said for all the armchair experts here taking guesses at how games will run and  what the technical problems will be.
All I see in this section is the same small group of people coming out with the same old crap. How about one of you experts give us a full review of a game you have played to completion on the PS3? It doesn't have to be good it can slam it for me but at least we are getting a hands on in depth review.
If you haven't got a PS3 or any games for one then really..."If you don't play the game. Don't make the rules"