Disk usage - read for your own education

Just read a few threads on the recent Lost Odyessy 4-disc fiasco, and I gotta say that as a software developer, it's sad to see various pieces of misinformation about how hardware is used and have that kind of misunderstanding repeated over and over again until it becomes some sort of accepted truth.

I'll try to explain what is really used for disk space (versus internal system memory and GPU memory), hopefully so that the clearly wrong and tired arguments are put to rest. As to whether people personally care about swapping discs, I'll leave that up to the current threads.

• Disk space is used mainly for media: pre-rendered video, audio, and textures. Note that the elements of in-game cutscenes take up space - stuff like characters speaking and new objects which can only be seen in that cutscene - but the animation itself and the movements are actually miniscule in size. For example, if you use existing game polygonal models and have characters talk to each other, the scene is going to be rather cheap in terms of diskspace. If your scene has explosions and you have to change a "clean" model of a building to a "destroyed" model, that's going to take up space.
• "Gameplay" - the programming code that defines what you can/cannot do in a game, actually uses very little disk space by itself. Consider that the 100 million+ lines of Windows Vista code can be compiled into 100-200MB's of executable binaries, e.g., runnable code. Also consider how much gameplay is had for 1-2 MB's in the original Civilization and Simcity.
• By extension, the length of a game is not at all dependent on how much disk space is available. FFVI was 40-60 hours long and came on a 16MB cart, and of course Oblivion fits on a DVD9. What disk space buys you is the ability to have lots of different premade objects in your game world, such as a forest that has 200 different kinds of trees versus one tree repeated 200 times. (of course, it's unrealistic for a game dev. to spend time creating 200 different trees just b/c he has the disk space to do so) Games like Oblivion and even Diablo II get away with this because they procedurally generate their maps so it taxes the CPU instead; it wouldn't work for something like GTAIV which tries to model a highly recognizable city.
• For most games on mult. disks, a good chunk of the space on disk is the same; for example, for multi-disk RPG's stuff like the battle system, character models, overworld map, etc. are going to have to be copied on every disk because the player can control these things. In that sense, the reason for multiple disks really is for the cinematics, but it's not a simple 3 disks * 9 GB = 27GB of data.

Ultimately, think of disk space as a way to save computational and rendering time. Having very high resolution texture of a chain-link fence means you don't have to spend the resources to render the thousands of polygons that make up each chain of that fence. Putting in a pre-rendered movie means you don't have to figure out how to animate your in-game characters within the limitations of the game engine (e.g., look at the limited range of animations for characters in FFVII in the game world). Having two models of buildings lit differently means you don't need a complex (and computationally expensive) lighting model on buildings to get day/night graphics.

There's always going to be a compromise between CPU and disk space, and there's no hard-and-fast rule dictating whether having more disk space is good or not.

Sounds like the more sapce the better the game will look and how much can bei going at once. Am I wrong?meetroid8

You are.

The size of a game doesn't dictate how good it looks. (nor vice-versa) Especially when things like procedrual texture generation are utilized in game development.

Logic in SW?

Praise the lord

Sounds like the more sapce the better the game will look and how much can bei going at once. Am I wrong?meetroid8

Nope all it does is add different looking trees or different looking buildings, it doesn't equate to better looking, It just means you have more variety.

Excellent post, unfortunately 85% of the people here will completely ignore your facts and cherish their opinions.Nemme

Agreed. TC thank you for the post. It was very informative and an eye opener. Unfourtunately you have more than 3 words in your post which in SW can cause a "sensory overload." :shock:

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]Sounds like the more sapce the better the game will look and how much can bei going at once. Am I wrong?Drizzt13

Nope all it does is add different looking trees or different looking buildings, it doesn't equate to better looking, It just means you have more variety.

Even with large storage mediums like Blu-Ray that's still a problem, though. More texture variety also equates to more system memory usage. And consoles are often pushed to their limits on that front as it is, while developers constantly recycle all different forms of media throughout their games to minimize the resources a game consumes (multiple instances of the same resource in any given area of a game still utilizes the same amount of system memory as if it were only utilized once.) RAM is a huge issue.

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]Sounds like the more sapce the better the game will look and how much can bei going at once. Am I wrong?Drizzt13

Nope all it does is add different looking trees or different looking buildings, it doesn't equate to better looking, It just means you have more variety.

And even then not necessarily, because procedurally-generated objects are indefinitely more varied than static premade objects, as long as you're willing to devote the CPU/GPU to creating it.

You can sometimes see this across multiple console generations, in spans of 7-8 years as technology advances. Compare, say, the sprite bitmaps of cliffs in the FFVI snowfield introduction (remember the one w/ Terra in the Magitech armor looking at the Esper?) and the generated cliffs in Crysis.

[QUOTE="Drizzt13"]

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]Sounds like the more sapce the better the game will look and how much can bei going at once. Am I wrong?Velocitas8

Nope all it does is add different looking trees or different looking buildings, it doesn't equate to better looking, It just means you have more variety.

Even with large storage mediums like Blu-Ray that's still a problem, though. More texture variety also equates to more system memory usage. And consoles are often pushed to their limits on that front as it is, while developers constantly recycle all different forms of media throughout their games to minimize the resources a game consumes (multiple instances of the same resource in any given area of a game still utilizes the same amount of system memory as if it were only utilized once.) RAM is a huge issue.

Knew there was a reason for getting 2GB of ram for PC. 30 different kinds of tree for the win.8)

Why does it have 4 disks again?

Why does it have 4 disks again?

Shomb22

Might I suggest reading the thread before replying to it?

Great post!

Keep up the god work buddy.

We need more PPL like u here so teh other can really understand what are talkin about.

And not posting som facts that really dosnt exsist .

[QUOTE="Shomb22"]

Why does it have 4 disks again?

Velocitas8

Might I suggest reading the thread before replying to it?

I did, so I ask if someone can sumarize it for me cuz I need help. I guess thats a no then. Thanks for responding!

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="Shomb22"]

Why does it have 4 disks again?

Shomb22

Might I suggest reading the thread before replying to it?

I did, so I ask if someone can sumarize it for me cuz I need help. I guess thats a no then. Thanks for responding!

You guys are bitter here at system wars. :-p

Summary: LO needs 4 disks mostly because of the cinematics and cutscenes plus any changes to the scenary (e.g., new world map), because we know the core gameplay fits on one disk. It has to fit on one disk because it's copied across all four disks since the player is able to access any part of it at any time.

Nice post, thanks. Fignewton50

well done

Excellent post.

People need to realise that gaming can be just as good on a 16mb cart as it can be on a 25 gig blu-ray disc. as long as developers are creative with how they use the space they have, any system can give us long, interesting games.

TC.....a large number of Playstation 3 titles are currently exceeding and often far surpassing the amount of disk space on the DVD-9. I don't think I need to tell you that on the 360, many developers are cutting it very, very close (Epic Games, Bioware), and others are moving on to multiple discs (Id, Mistwalker).

The Playstation 3 developers often attribute a shocking amount of space to audio (Heavenly Sword developers said audio alone wouldn't fit on a single DVD-9). If not that, cinematics. However, then we get developers like Naughty Dog that say that their game (Uncharted), regardless of the length of the actual experience, just will not fit on a DVD-9. The reason for this, they say, is streaming data of all kinds, causing even the DEMO to not fit on a single DVD-9. This is something that HAS to factor into any logical equation. Any time you get a game that cannot fit even a scratch of the experience on your proprietary format of choice, it's game over. This isn't a 3-4 disk situation, this a zero, go home situation.

And, listen closely here, Guerilla Games said that a single level (the demo level) of Killzone 2 takes up OVER 2 gigabytes of data. That would be game data. That is completely unrelated to cinematics (which are all generated real time, not pre-rendered....granted, the PS3 has a lofty amount of CPU grunt to throw around, too) or audio, it's simply the level itself and perhaps the things that populate it. This is totally disregarded by you in your conclusion that it's basically air that's filling up these discs left and right. That's level data, and that's legitimate and pertinent to the discussion.

Additionally, like you said, a lot of the stuff they have to place on subsequent discs on these games that come on multiple discs is fluff! It's repetition. Now, ask yourself...is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Wouldn't it be an ASSET to only have to create this stuff ONCE, and put it on one disc, instead of having a giant overhead (until the point where, presumably, all that necessary material takes up >9 gigs on its own....keep in mind, the DVD-9 on 360 holds less than 9 gigs of material) that fills up even MORE disc space, repeatedly.

Whether this game is 9+9+9+9=36gigs or not, that's still EXTREMELY significant and regardless of how you count up the gigs, you've still got 4 discs! That's totally crazy! You're looking at FOUR DISCS. Count them. Versus one, as you admit would be the case on the Blu Ray format. One versus four. That's the bare argument we're looking at here, the bare dispute. Especially considering each DVD-9 carries between 7-8 gigs approx.....

How these games add up is completely irrelevant to the discussion, the point is that they're totally surpassing the amount of space provided by the DVD-9 while they're just hitting the ceiling with the most space-consuming material on Blu Ray.

Excellent post.

People need to realise that gaming can be just as good on a 16mb cart as it can be on a 25 gig blu-ray disc. as long as developers are creative with how they use the space they have, any system can give us long, interesting games.

BuryMe

Then guess what: go play games on a Super Nintendo and leave the rest of us alone.

You forfeit your argument.

[QUOTE="Shomb22"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="Shomb22"]

Why does it have 4 disks again?

Datheron

Might I suggest reading the thread before replying to it?

I did, so I ask if someone can sumarize it for me cuz I need help. I guess thats a no then. Thanks for responding!

You guys are bitter here at system wars. :-p

Summary: LO needs 4 disks mostly because of the cinematics and cutscenes plus any changes to the scenary (e.g., new world map), because we know the core gameplay fits on one disk. It has to fit on one disk because it's copied across all four disks since the player is able to access any part of it at any time.

So, what you're saying is, if this game was on a Blu Ray disc instead of DVD-9s, it would fit on one disc.

Thank you, come again.

[QUOTE="Drizzt13"]

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]Sounds like the more sapce the better the game will look and how much can bei going at once. Am I wrong?Datheron

Nope all it does is add different looking trees or different looking buildings, it doesn't equate to better looking, It just means you have more variety.

And even then not necessarily, because procedurally-generated objects are indefinitely more varied than static premade objects, as long as you're willing to devote the CPU/GPU to creating it.

You can sometimes see this across multiple console generations, in spans of 7-8 years as technology advances. Compare, say, the sprite bitmaps of cliffs in the FFVI snowfield introduction (remember the one w/ Terra in the Magitech armor looking at the Esper?) and the generated cliffs in Crysis.

Silence, Guerilla Games is speaking. Let's listen in:

"One level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes."

Silence, Guerilla Games is speaking. Let's listen in:

"One level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes."

Redfingers

Wasn't the same things said about Lair and Heavenly Sword?

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

Silence, Guerilla Games is speaking. Let's listen in:

"One level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes."

thirstychainsaw

Wasn't the same things said about Lair and Heavenly Sword?

No. I addressed Heavenly Sword in my earlier post.

Heavenly Sword takes up space by using assets that DON'T have to do with gameplay/level data/graphics. Rather, it's cinematic/animation/voice acting/audio based.

The point is that a LEVEL, I.E. an actual segment of the game in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes and that's inarguable. That isn't fluff. That isn't erroneous crap that you could "live without," that's gameplay. Not game CODE, persay, but then again, what would you do with game code if you didn't have a level? Feet without a playground...

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Excellent post.

People need to realise that gaming can be just as good on a 16mb cart as it can be on a 25 gig blu-ray disc. as long as developers are creative with how they use the space they have, any system can give us long, interesting games.

Redfingers

Then guess what: go play games on a Super Nintendo and leave the rest of us alone.

You forfeit your argument.

Bitter?

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

I like to see how BioWare strategy with Mass Effect.

That's the type of game that would really benefit from blu-ray, but they managed to squeeze it into just 7GB. They're probably making full use of procedural synthesis to save up textures space and no pre-rendered video whatsoever but no matter how highly effcient engine is, there's one fundamental thing they can't optimize, audio.

High quality audio takes massive ammounts of space and considering this is an RPG with lots of dialogs, I ask myself if most of the game conversations won't be text reading instead of the character actually speaking.

TC is very right, blu-ray is an advantage, specially in games like MGS, ME and GTA, but nothing stops developers from making fun and great looking games with dvd9 space or less.

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

Mortok

But PC games are installed, when they are decompressed. If you compress a console game in the same levels of PC games, you're gonna waste mad ammounts of memory and cpu to decompress everything in real-time.

I like to see how BioWare strategy with Mass Effect.

That's the type of game that would really benefit from blu-ray, but they managed to squeeze it into just 7GB. They're probably making full use of procedural synthesis to save up textures space and no pre-rendered video whatsoever but no matter how highly effcient engine is, there's one fundamental thing they can't optimize, audio.

High quality audio takes massive ammounts of space and considering this is an RPG with lots of dialogs, I ask myself if most of the game conversations won't be text reading instead of the character actually speaking.

TC is very right, blu-ray is an advantage, specially in games like MGS, ME and GTA, but nothing stops developers from making fun and great looking games with dvd9 space or less.

lordxymor

Uhh..Compression? WMA is almost twice the cize of MP3's yet the difference is unnoticeable.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Excellent post.

People need to realise that gaming can be just as good on a 16mb cart as it can be on a 25 gig blu-ray disc. as long as developers are creative with how they use the space they have, any system can give us long, interesting games.

Mortok

Then guess what: go play games on a Super Nintendo and leave the rest of us alone.

You forfeit your argument.

Bitter?

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

The entirely of a PC game is installed to the hard disc, meaning the TC's point about LO being primarily recycled material is completely and utterly irrelevant on the PC platform. Notice: no one's arguing the viability of Blu Ray ATM on the PC platform...if ever. Hard drives are essentially limitless in capacity but this is NOT VIABLE in the console market.

You're the one with an incongruity to this topic. I don't believe PC games were ever addressed nor were their relevance ever implied anywhere.

Let's evaluate your glib "bitter?" comment in context. You asked if I was bitter when I shut down someone's argument for a point they mentioned that was relevant to the topic. No sweat. You, on the other hand, brought up something that was completely irrelevant to either my argument, my post, or the thread itself and then proceeded to ask me if I was bitter about something I had already shot out of the sky. If you're NOT bitter, I ask you, why did you reply to that post and not even address my actual argument?

Does the PC use 16 MB cartridges? Does the Super Nintendo have a hard drive? Just stop harrassing me with your nonsensical insults.

World of Warcraft is crap, Crysis isn't out yet, UT3 isn't out yet, World in Conflict I doubt you've even played (or purchased, yet), assuming it's out, and Company of Heroes is an awesome game. However, it doesn't take anywhere near 2 gigabytes of space per level. You're totally forgetting the relevance of the argument. The fact that a level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes, according to the developer, is EXTREMELY significant, not insignificant in the face of what these other games constitute.

:) Mass Effect is a perfect example how taxing the game is to the CPU with its 100's of different locations and cutscenes rendered in real-time.[QUOTE="lordxymor"]

I like to see how BioWare strategy with Mass Effect.

That's the type of game that would really benefit from blu-ray, but they managed to squeeze it into just 7GB. They're probably making full use of procedural synthesis to save up textures space and no pre-rendered video whatsoever but no matter how highly effcient engine is, there's one fundamental thing they can't optimize, audio.

High quality audio takes massive ammounts of space and considering this is an RPG with lots of dialogs, I ask myself if most of the game conversations won't be text reading instead of the character actually speaking.

TC is very right, blu-ray is an advantage, specially in games like MGS, ME and GTA, but nothing stops developers from making fun and great looking games with dvd9 space or less.

Pro_wrestler

Uhh..Compression? WMA is almost twice the cize of MP3's yet the difference is unnoticeable.

I've seen the videos of Mass Effect and absolutely everything involves voice acting. It being poorly acted (which I believe a lot of it probably is) is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="Mortok"]

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

lordxymor

But PC games are installed, when they are decompressed. If you compress a console game in the same levels of PC games, you're gonna waste mad ammounts of memory and cpu to decompress everything in real-time.

Yes, but compression works. The problem with consoles (specifically Xbox 360) the the lack of harddrive usage (That's why you hear that damn drive working). It amazes me how Microsoft fumbles the harddrive issue when they were first to come out with a standard hdd that uncompresssed and cached data. Oh well. I agree with Redfinger, Blueray's storage is a huge plus, single data disc, HD movies,pure quality. But the bottom line it has no bearing on the quality of the game.

[QUOTE="Mortok"]

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

lordxymor

But PC games are installed, when they are decompressed. If you compress a console game in the same levels of PC games, you're gonna waste mad ammounts of memory and cpu to decompress everything in real-time.

Here's where the argument gets interesting. Warhawk takes up 800 MB cache extremely compressed on the hard drive, both the retail and downloadable versions.

The developer said in an interview with IGN that this 800 megs stays 800 megs until the very moment you decide to demand the content, at which point it sits on main memory. Main memory meaning 256 MB XDR memory, I presume. How this works I do not know but the game works without a single hitch and it does indeed work.

[QUOTE="lordxymor"][QUOTE="Mortok"]

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

Mortok

But PC games are installed, when they are decompressed. If you compress a console game in the same levels of PC games, you're gonna waste mad ammounts of memory and cpu to decompress everything in real-time.

Yes, but compression works. The problem with consoles (specifically Xbox 360) the the lack of harddrive usage (That's why you hear that damn drive working). It amazes me how Microsoft fumbles the harddrive issue when they were first to come out with a standard hdd that uncompresssed and cached data. Oh well. I agree with Redfinger, Blueray's storage is a huge plus, single data disc, HD movies,pure quality. But the bottom line it has no bearing on the quality of the game.

I disagree completely that it has no bearing on the quality of the game...however, I will agree that it has no bearing on the quality of the gameplay at the most basic level. But then again none of us have the foresight to determine how it will contribute to gameplay or how an increasingly limited (presumably) storage medium such as DVD-9 will detract from gameplay on the Xbox 360 (either in terms of length, load times....things on which I honestly dare not speculate).

I'd easily concede that plenty of bad games have been made on Blu Ray thus far and that Mass Effect is easily an achievement even if it turns out to be a flop (which I consider extremely unlikely).

Again, the question is not whether Blu Ray is really a plus, but whether the Xbox 360 will suffer comparably worse experiences when compared directly to Blu Ray games on the Playstation 3. I would argue that this is already happening, and simultaneously PS3 owners are suffering the incompetency and carelessness of horrible development efforts on the platform.

TC.....a large number of Playstation 3 titles are currently exceeding and often far surpassing the amount of disk space on the DVD-9. I don't think I need to tell you that on the 360, many developers are cutting it very, very close (Epic Games, Bioware), and others are moving on to multiple discs (Id, Mistwalker).Redfingers

True. A good part of this comes simply from the higher resolutions we're using in games and hence the space needed for high-res textures. Remember that a 1024x1024 texture takes 4x as many pixels (and hence space) than a 512x512 texture.

The Playstation 3 developers often attribute a shocking amount of space to audio (Heavenly Sword developers said audio alone wouldn't fit on a single DVD-9). If not that, cinematics. However, then we get developers like Naughty Dog that say that their game (Uncharted), regardless of the length of the actual experience, just will not fit on a DVD-9. The reason for this, they say, is streaming data of all kinds, causing even the DEMO to not fit on a single DVD-9. This is something that HAS to factor into any logical equation. Any time you get a game that cannot fit even a scratch of the experience on your proprietary format of choice, it's game over. This isn't a 3-4 disk situation, this a zero, go home situation.Redfingers

Let's not mince words here - Heavenly Sword is the only game whose audio is 10GB and the developers simply pointed out that their multilingual audio takes up that much space. I do think that they compressed it reasonably, but to make use of the PS3's high-end audio capabilities they kept it at high quality.

As to game demos not even fitting a DVD9, I can certainly believe that, esp. given Uncharted's variance in textures, animations, scenes and scenary. That said though, if you talk about the actual levels of the game (and hence the length), you'd probably find that they take up very little disk space compared to the above "overhead" data of the gameplay and level maps itself.

And, listen closely here, Guerilla Games said that a single level (the demo level) of Killzone 2 takes up OVER 2 gigabytes of data. That would be game data. That is completely unrelated to cinematics (which are all generated real time, not pre-rendered....granted, the PS3 has a lofty amount of CPU grunt to throw around, too) or audio, it's simply the level itself and perhaps the things that populate it. This is totally disregarded by you in your conclusion that it's basically air that's filling up these discs left and right. That's level data, and that's legitimate and pertinent to the discussion.Redfingers

And a good chunk, the majority of it, would be textures and objects which can be reused in subsequent levels. Is the lamp from level 1 going to be the same lamp in level 8? I don't see why not. Now, what you may argue is that for the sake of memory access and cohesiveness as a whole, the data that defines said lamp is going to be embedded in the level information for each level and that you're essentially making a copy of that data, and you'd be completely correct.

Additionally, like you said, a lot of the stuff they have to place on subsequent discs on these games that come on multiple discs is fluff! It's repetition. Now, ask yourself...is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Wouldn't it be an ASSET to only have to create this stuff ONCE, and put it on one disc, instead of having a giant overhead (until the point where, presumably, all that necessary material takes up >9 gigs on its own....keep in mind, the DVD-9 on 360 holds less than 9 gigs of material) that fills up even MORE disc space, repeatedly.

Whether this game is 9+9+9+9=36gigs or not, that's still EXTREMELY significant and regardless of how you count up the gigs, you've still got 4 discs! That's totally crazy! You're looking at FOUR DISCS. Count them. Versus one, as you admit would be the case on the Blu Ray format. One versus four. That's the bare argument we're looking at here, the bare dispute. Especially considering each DVD-9 carries between 7-8 gigs approx.....

How these games add up is completely irrelevant to the discussion, the point is that they're totally surpassing the amount of space provided by the DVD-9 while they're just hitting the ceiling with the most space-consuming material on Blu Ray.Redfingers

I agree with you on the last part. I'm not making an argument as to whether it's necessary to more storage space; I was mainly trying to desolve some of the blatant misunderstandings and baseless equivalences. (disk space = game time!) Better technology isn't a bad thing, and having the additional space means that devs can save time in trying to find workarounds and hacks around issues and focus more on adding to the core gameplay. (and no, they're not "lazy devs", when forced to split time between adding features and cramming content, why ask for crammed content?)

That was themost sensible post on system wars yet. Props to the TC.

I like to see how BioWare strategy with Mass Effect.

That's the type of game that would really benefit from blu-ray, but they managed to squeeze it into just 7GB. They're probably making full use of procedural synthesis to save up textures space and no pre-rendered video whatsoever but no matter how highly effcient engine is, there's one fundamental thing they can't optimize, audio.

High quality audio takes massive ammounts of space and considering this is an RPG with lots of dialogs, I ask myself if most of the game conversations won't be text reading instead of the character actually speaking.

TC is very right, blu-ray is an advantage, specially in games like MGS, ME and GTA, but nothing stops developers from making fun and great looking games with dvd9 space or less.

lordxymor

First, pre-rendered videos wouldn't work in Mass Effect because you can tailor the main character's looks to your liking. Second, all dialogue is spoken, that should have been blatanly obvious from the countless videos showing off the dialogue system. Mass Effect is simply proving that by keeping entire games running in-engine there is absolutely no reason for Blu-Ray. Actual game data takes up very little space and unless devs inist on using uncompressed audio, there is no threat from that aspect either. And please note I said there's no need for Blu Ray. I did not say that Blu Ray wasn't preferable, I think that it is.

[QUOTE="Mortok"][QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Excellent post.

People need to realise that gaming can be just as good on a 16mb cart as it can be on a 25 gig blu-ray disc. as long as developers are creative with how they use the space they have, any system can give us long, interesting games.

Redfingers

Then guess what: go play games on a Super Nintendo and leave the rest of us alone.

You forfeit your argument.

Bitter?

PC games span accross multiple CDs, not DVDs or Blueray, the gameplay is still enjoyable, Graphics is still beautiful and the story is still immersive. Your arguement has no bearing on this topic, the TC isn't attacking any platform but he is explaining the misconception of multi-disk games. He's explaining what PC gamers have known for awhile.

World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis all make Killzone 2's 2 gig level design .doc seem like trans fat -- neither required nor beneficial.

The entirely of a PC game is installed to the hard disc, meaning the TC's point about LO being primarily recycled material is completely and utterly irrelevant on the PC platform. Notice: no one's arguing the viability of Blu Ray ATM on the PC platform...if ever. Hard drives are essentially limitless in capacity but this is NOT VIABLE in the console market.

You're the one with an incongruity to this topic. I don't believe PC games were ever addressed nor were their relevance ever implied anywhere.

Let's evaluate your glib "bitter?" comment in context. You asked if I was bitter when I shut down someone's argument for a point they mentioned that was relevant to the topic. No sweat. You, on the other hand, brought up something that was completely irrelevant to either my argument, my post, or the thread itself and then proceeded to ask me if I was bitter about something I had already shot out of the sky. If you're NOT bitter, I ask you, why did you reply to that post and not even address my actual argument?

Does the PC use 16 MB cartridges? Does the Super Nintendo have a hard drive? Just stop harrassing me with your nonsensical insults.

World of Warcraft is crap, Crysis isn't out yet, UT3 isn't out yet, World in Conflict I doubt you've even played (or purchased, yet), assuming it's out, and Company of Heroes is an awesome game. However, it doesn't take anywhere near 2 gigabytes of space per level. You're totally forgetting the relevance of the argument. The fact that a level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes, according to the developer, is EXTREMELY significant, not insignificant in the face of what these other games constitute.

PC platform, NES, what is the difference here? They are both mediums that do not use blueray nor need to. First, I wasn't attacking you. You were harsh on Buryme when he made his opinion. Second,when you are paraphrasing a developer in their reason why 2 gigs is needed when we know what was said with Lair, we know was said with Heavenly Sword, really mean nothing. nothing.

The entirely of a PC game is installed to the hard disc, meaning the TC's point about LO being primarily recycled material is completely and utterly irrelevant on the PC platform.Redfingers

Game materials aren't recycled due to disc space limitations as you ignorantly imply. Resources are recycled due to SYSTEM MEMORY limitations, which Blu-Ray doesn't assist with easing IN THE LEAST. Another reason is it requires alot less work and therefore saves money to recycle the same authored content throughout any given level.

Blu-Ray is absolutely meaningless in the pursuit of utilizing unique resources throughout a game. Disc space has never been the issue with unique textures and other game resources, it's always been RAM. Especially with consoles, which are extremely memory-bound. Even then, those limitations can be overcome with procedural generation.

he fact that a level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes, according to the developer, is EXTREMELY significant, not insignificant in the face of what these other games constitute.Redfingers

This is meaningless. To a map designer, the term "level data" is defined as geometry and actor/mesh/texture placement data. The resources themselves..meaning texture data, models, etc are effectively part of the game itself, and can not attributed to any given level (since they're recycled throughout.) A developer would have to be outright LYING to say that data alone takes up anywhere near 2GB. It simply isn't possible unless they're idiotically packaging texture data and other resources with map data, which is a totally ineffective way of going about it. It's MANY times more effective to pull level resources from one single pool.

It sounds like they might be using a stupid and ineffective method of resource pooling to try and justify Blu-Ray's usage. I really doubt that's the case, but it's either that or they aren't using the term "level data" properly (this is most likely.) Or they're lying, take your pick.

[QUOTE="thirstychainsaw"][QUOTE="Redfingers"]

Silence, Guerilla Games is speaking. Let's listen in:

"One level in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes."

Redfingers

Wasn't the same things said about Lair and Heavenly Sword?

No. I addressed Heavenly Sword in my earlier post.

Heavenly Sword takes up space by using assets that DON'T have to do with gameplay/level data/graphics. Rather, it's cinematic/animation/voice acting/audio based.

The point is that a LEVEL, I.E. an actual segment of the game in Killzone 2 takes up 2 gigabytes and that's inarguable. That isn't fluff. That isn't erroneous crap that you could "live without," that's gameplay. Not game CODE, persay, but then again, what would you do with game code if you didn't have a level? Feet without a playground...

Lemme clear this up. This, along with the "300MB" levels in Unreal Tournament, refers to the entirety of the level, including the textures, the surface definitions, the layout, and ultimately each of the points on the polygons that define that burning car you see down the street.

Now, if you have 20 levels, there's a few days you can go about serializing the information. (e.g., taking raw data and putting it on disk) Each level can embed everything it needs unto itself and be one gigantic file (or set of files) - that's where that 2GB comes in. Or, you have a set of common resources - say, a directory full of textures and objects - and you reference these resources from your map; that'd bring down your map definition information to a few MB's as you're mostly grabbing from a common pool of data. That common pool, however, may be many GB's in size.

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]:) Mass Effect is a perfect example how taxing the game is to the CPU with its 100's of different locations and cutscenes rendered in real-time.[QUOTE="lordxymor"]

I like to see how BioWare strategy with Mass Effect.

That's the type of game that would really benefit from blu-ray, but they managed to squeeze it into just 7GB. They're probably making full use of procedural synthesis to save up textures space and no pre-rendered video whatsoever but no matter how highly effcient engine is, there's one fundamental thing they can't optimize, audio.

High quality audio takes massive ammounts of space and considering this is an RPG with lots of dialogs, I ask myself if most of the game conversations won't be text reading instead of the character actually speaking.

TC is very right, blu-ray is an advantage, specially in games like MGS, ME and GTA, but nothing stops developers from making fun and great looking games with dvd9 space or less.

Redfingers

Uhh..Compression? WMA is almost twice the cize of MP3's yet the difference is unnoticeable.

I've seen the videos of Mass Effect and absolutely everything involves voice acting. It being poorly acted (which I believe a lot of it probably is) is irrelevant.

Remember that spoken audio can be highly compressed in a lossy fashion (e.g., not like music, which would suffer from audio ranges), the same reason why podcasts tend to be small files.

Again, the question is not whether Blu Ray is really a plus, but whether the Xbox 360 will suffer comparably worse experiences when compared directly to Blu Ray games on the Playstation 3. I would argue that this is already happening, and simultaneously PS3 owners are suffering the incompetency and carelessness of horrible development efforts on the platform.

Redfingers

Which IMO is worst than 360 situation. Incopetent developers will make flops no matter how powerful the hardware.

Audio can be compressed yes and you can put dozen of hours of audio dialogs in a dvd, but I'm not argueing this is gonna affect the quality of the game, that's up to developer's creativity to overcome hardware limitations. I'm saying it will definetly impact the quality of the media, higher queality audio and video take more space, period.

Either if people can't tell the difference between mp3@320kbps and DTSHD or between VHS, DVD and 1080p video, which contingent in a lot of factors including the media setups, quality of the hardware, cables, etc, having those thing is a clear advantage.

My granddad once told me he couldn't tell the difference between VHS and DVD. He thought DVD was just a gimmick 10 years ago. Once the technology becomes cheap and widely avaliable, people will 'sudenly' become aware of the difference and demand high quality media.

--

And people bashing developers that say blu-ray is needed is complely fansboyish. It IS need to develiver that particular quality. If they are shipping game with uncompressed audio they sould be praised, they are giving the best media quality avaliable. But making crappy games with great medi, be it video, audio or textures, doesn't make the game any better. It's an advantage when the game is actually good.

Media quality =/= Game quality