Print

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 28 2006, 02:51 PM)

I'm just gonna fuel this on forever. How come every review have stated that GOW is Super game but they have also all complained about it being to short (from 5-8 hours in most reviews) and the premise/story more then lacking.

Just because a game is short or lacking of story doesn't necessarily mean it was due to lack of disc space. It's how the game was designed. Most shooters fall short on story and game length. Gears was designed as a co-op/multiplayer experience so the concentration when more towards that end of it then the single player.

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 28 2006, 02:51 PM)

And if your just gonna reuse textures for additional scenarios your gonna end up with a pretty dull looking game with 30 hours running through the same corridor.

Not necessarily true, some textures can be re-used where appropriate, other textures need to be made fresh for new areas, the point wasn't to reuse EVERYTHING it was that a bulk of the game is reused, meaning that if you were to double the amount of gameplay it doesn't mean doubling the game size... you might only need to increase it by a a few megs because most of the things, particularly those things behind the scenes, will be and should be reused.

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 28 2006, 02:51 PM)

Is there one? ps2 game on more then 1 disc. And having 4-5 discs for most games on the ps1 sucked on the rpgs you can live with it but there where alot of action games at the end on more then 2 cds. I really hope that isn't gonna happen with the x360.

I own every FF game on the PS1, as well as several other multi-disc games for the PS1, Saturn, Dreamcast and Gamecube, to be perfectly honest I never once had a problem with switching discs. Considering you typically had a good 5-15 hours of gameplay before needing to switch it wasn't exactly what I would consider to be a problem. It's all in how the game was designed, and I think most developers are smart enough to design the disc break points to be the least painful as possible.

Also be honest now... you don't "really hope that isn't gonna happen with the x360."

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 28 2006, 02:51 PM)

But what I don't understand is this out cry and defensiveness that sprouts as soon as we see that blueray isn't just for movies but will be used and used well for games, making it easier on developers ( nice of sony to atleast give them that since rsx and cell apperently is more then a bitch to develop on).

For me my problem with blu-ray is 2-fold
1. I don't want any part in this format war, I don't want to support either format, I just want a standard to emerge so I can start using that standard. I have a problem because Sony is using their Playstation clout to force that format on anyone who would buy their console.
2. I'm not yet convinced it's truly necessary for most games, I can deal with a few large titles spanning multiple discs, as I said earlier I've never had a problem with it. But this decision on Sony's part not only increased the price of their console by an estimated $200 to $300 but it also increased disc prices, lowered disc access speed, delayed the console's release nearly a year's time, and drove supply numbers down to a laughably small amount. In my opinion these are very unreasonable prices to pay for the sake of not having to get up to switch discs every 5-15 hours.

If Sony was truly more concerned with storage space then they were about furthering their Blu-Ray format they could have gone with alternative options such as the 5+ layer DVD tech that they own but aren't using for anything and launched the console last spring in greater quantities for a lower price. The only thing they would have "lost" was further promoting their Blu-Ray format which wasn't ready yet anyway.

It's not a cry of defensiveness, it's calling shenanigans: in my eyes the consumer is paying dearly for the sake of using a format that could possibly be dead in a year or twos time, when there were perfectly reasonable alternatives that in my opinion would have been more beneficial to consumers.

[Pheidias]

ok first wtf Twisted "Also be honest now... you don't "really hope that isn't gonna happen with the x360.""

I don't wanna see the x360 fail in anyway whatsoever, I'd really like a three way tie becouse then we all win, we will get more games better games everything will be better. This is what is so sick with the people that haunts theese forums. They have this stick in thier side towards Sony. I know you Twisted have been very outspoken about that fact. If sony goes under with the ps3 we will be loosing the guys that basicly started the mainstream gaming business to me that would suck very very much.

To be frank I think silentbob and I are the only ones on this part of the forum that doesn't have a serious syndrome of ms propaganda and sony hate.

And Twisted you are aware of the fact that MS by going for a early start forsake testing the console (making it the worst G1 console to date), include hd-dvd, shipping it with a brick, without digital connections, making it hdd less, etc etc and their launch numbers weren't exactly stellar cos of the low supply . The price for adding this in later will cost you a lot more then the 200-300$ you say your forced to fork up extra for the ps3.

[xboxSlayer]

I've been a gamer for years and I've never complained about a game being multi-disk. At the same time am I to believe that games need lots of disk space to be good. How come Resistance is the only decent PS3 game at launch? All the developers had all that disk space to work with.

I have no idea where Pheidias is going with his rant. I want my game systems to play games. Who cares if I have to change disks. And I don't want to wear out my game system playing movies. How many xboxes and PS2's were ruined from playing DVD's. Actually spending an extra $200 for an external movie player makes sense that way.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 28 2006, 05:15 PM)

ok first wtf Twisted "Also be honest now... you don't "really hope that isn't gonna happen with the x360.""

I don't wanna see the x360 fail in anyway whatsoever, I'd really like a three way tie becouse then we all win, we will get more games better games everything will be better. This is what is so sick with the people that haunts theese forums. They have this stick in thier side towards Sony. I know you Twisted have been very outspoken about that fact. If sony goes under with the ps3 we will be loosing the guys that basicly started the mainstream gaming business to me that would suck very very much.

To be frank I think silentbob and I are the only ones on this part of the forum that doesn't have a serious syndrome of ms propaganda and sony hate.

And Twisted you are aware of the fact that MS by going for a early start forsake testing the console (making it the worst G1 console to date), include hd-dvd, shipping it with a brick, without digital connections, making it hdd less, etc etc and their launch numbers weren't exactly stellar cos of the low supply . The price for adding this in later will cost you a lot more then the 200-300$ you say your forced to fork up extra for the ps3.

thats just the thing that you wouldnt understand not being an old school gamer.  while sony did spread gaming to the mainstream, it didnt need sony's help.  gaming was spreading to the mainstream on its own just fine, sony just threw in all the idiots all at once.  

those that put down sony or the ps3 are not MS whores and sony haters.  a lot of them can be gamers that have standards and appreciate respect from companies that they are supporting.  

MS launching the 360 early is in respect of it releasing the 360 earlier then the other consoles, not releasing it early as a "rushed" product.  for comparison sake both the ps2 and ps3 had far worse launches then the 360 by a mile.  

you act like the design desicions were based off of "rushing" the 360.  it wasnt designed to have wi-fi (unknown to you most hardcore gamers want wired over wireless since its usually faster and more reliable), it comes with a "brick" for good reason this way if the PSU fails you only have to send in one part and not the whole console, HDD less console was again a choice not because of rushed production.  most of the design choices were for cost efficiency, this way your not FORCED to buy something you may not want or need.  of course this is probably way beyond your understanding.

i can go on and on to how wrong you are.  the sad part is you dont see it and probably never will.

[Pheidias]

kage360, I don't even play new school games... And when sony moved into the gaming world it doubled or tripled it. This woudn't have happened if Nintendo and Sega had been solely continuing the nintendon't genesisn't routine

And saying the 360 wasn't rushed, means that they are just incompetent since I have never heard of any other console makers that felt they needed to give back money and extend the warranty cos of the horrible builds.

And no I won't and never will see how a console company failing is a good thing, I still miss SEGA.
To bad you won't see that and never will.

[Pheidias]

Twisted I just saw something on isupply they estimate the blueray drive to drive up the cost of the ps3 with a whooping 125$. Thanks for forcing that 105$ extra on us compared to the x360.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 29 2006, 02:01 AM)

kage360, I don't even play new school games... And when sony moved into the gaming world it doubled or tripled it. This woudn't have happened if Nintendo and Sega had been solely continuing the nintendon't genesisn't routine

And saying the 360 wasn't rushed, means that they are just incompetent since I have never heard of any other console makers that felt they needed to give back money and extend the warranty cos of the horrible builds.

And no I won't and never will see how a console company failing is a good thing, I still miss SEGA.
To bad you won't see that and never will.

my brain hurt just reading this rubbish.  you dont play "new school" games?  so you only play 16-bit games and those that came before it?  bullshit.  yes the market exploded when sony came on the scene, when did i ever argue this point?  the gaming market did not need sony, it was growing just fine on it's own but now we have a bunch of idiot fanboys like you that ruin educated/informed conversations and a mass market of zombies that eat up sequal after sequal.  yeah i can really see how sony rescued the gaming market  

the xbox was rushed, the 360 was not.  every system has issues right at launch and because a company actually cares for once to keep their user-base happy reflects as a bad thing?  my launch 360 (along with over a dozen i know in person) proves that there wasnt anything wrong with the 360 at launch, like anything else its either faulty or it isnt.

i never said that any company failing is a good thing, but sony needs a good kick in the nuts so they would maybe come back down to reality.  not only does it effect the economics of the gaming industry but it also polutes the minds of new gamers that are in this world.  i would quit gaming if every gamer i ran into was no better then you.

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 29 2006, 09:58 AM)

Twisted I just saw something on isupply they estimate the blueray drive to drive up the cost of the ps3 with a whooping 125$. Thanks for forcing that 105$ extra on us compared to the x360.

those are estimates and not to be taken as fact.  if you would know what your talking about then you wouldnt even try to use such figures to prove your mindless point.  

your paying extra because of a format war and sony's hurt pride over so many failed formats.  get over it.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 29 2006, 09:58 AM)

Twisted I just saw something on isupply they estimate the blueray drive to drive up the cost of the ps3 with a whooping 125$. Thanks for forcing that 105$ extra on us compared to the x360.

$125 would put the low end PS3 at $375 and if that were the case I would own one.

MS isn't forcing anything, HD-DVD isn't required for games and I never have to buy one as long as I live.

[Pheidias]

Acctually as I stated its a added cost of 105$ so it ends up at 395, but considering that they lose 300$ on the low end system It would probably have ended up at 500$ anyway, The cost to sony would just have been less.

[incognegro]

QUOTE

And Twisted you are aware of the fact that MS by going for a early start forsake testing the console (making it the worst G1 console to date), include hd-dvd, shipping it with a brick, without digital connections, making it hdd less, etc etc and their launch numbers weren't exactly stellar cos of the low supply . The price for adding this in later will cost you a lot more then the 200-300$ you say your forced to fork up extra for the ps3.

Thats some ignorant shit!.......lol


all that stuff have nothing to do with having an early start. No hd dvd is because devs asked for faster access time over more storage, the brick thing is to avoid heat issues and after overheating PSUs in the xbox1 burning up motherboards, this seem like a smart choice; digital connections just wasn't popular enough for them to consider and the 360 was never hdd less, MS just wanted to have the choice for games to work without the hdd. The biggest cost on the original xbox was the hdd so MS wanted to have as much control over the pricing on the console as much as possible.

Unlike sony MS doesn't ALWAYS make moves based on their opponents idea's, they also make moves based on past mistakes........

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 27 2006, 09:14 AM)

Oh and just so you know Blue dragon for the x360 is already 3 discs and where 30gb before they compressed it.

Blue Dragon is also made by the same guy who made Final Fantasy. It's what they do.

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 28 2006, 01:50 AM)

But since Mr.Invader's link isn't that good to begin with I give you a IGN one
http://xbox360.ign.c...7/747023p1.html

What link? This is the first post i have on this topic.

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 28 2006, 03:38 PM)

Just because a game is short or lacking of story doesn't necessarily mean it was due to lack of disc space. It's how the game was designed. Most shooters fall short on story and game length. Gears was designed as a co-op/multiplayer experience so the concentration when more towards that end of it then the single player.

Oblivion only took 5Gb of space and I've played over a hundred hours on it and still have 10 or so Daedric quests to do, including downloading the expansions.

[Pheidias]

MR I you should read my posts if you want to reply to them...

Acctually if you read your post your saying MS makes moves that will bring or save them the most money, nothing else. And i'd like to see a link to the devs asking ms not to use a bigger medium.

[dvsone]

Maybe you could post some links to articles where 360 developers are asking for more space?

[incognegro]

Ill go find some links as soon as I get to work...But before I do that, let me make something clear; it was situation where MS did a poll asking for more space or better disc read times, which is more important. The "better disc read times" won the poll from what I remember (this old news, like E3 ps3/360 unveiling). So more disc space was not dismissed, it was just unpopular. Finding a link to that is gonna be a pain. Anybody willing to help me out is greatly appreciated

wonder if m_chael can give some help here?

dsone, in response he is probably gonna link a certain jostiq article or the rumor of a game taking 4 discs.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 30 2006, 01:21 AM)

MR I you should read my posts if you want to reply to them...

Acctually if you read your post your saying MS makes moves that will bring or save them the most money, nothing else. And i'd like to see a link to the devs asking ms not to use a bigger medium.

its true there were concerns about how DVD9 would handle HD gaming.  these concerns were mainly around E305 though, before developers even had any experience with how it would work out.  

concerns have died down drastically since then though.  i havent heard any concerns since the system came out.  so any articles that would be found would be old and pointless