Gamespot reviews are not to be trusted. They delete negative reviews, thereby boosting scores of crappy games. If you want real reviews - look elsewhere (Eurogamer, Kotaku, IGN etc.)
dniq_gamespot's forum posts
back to the topic..as i was saying that if developers cannot do it then stop saying that you know. I mean i want to see a debeloper that says , "Yeah we are going to show what blu-ray can really do for gaming." kinda like Kojima..i mean here's he's saying that he is using the entire blu-rau for MGS 4. I want attitude like this.
I wonder, though, what exactly are they gonna use it for? From the videos and screenshots I've seen so far, the graphics look pretty much like what you see in Resistance: quite plain and simple, nothing special. The only reason I could think of they might need this much space is if they use duplicates of the same texture, scattered all over the disk, to compensate for BD slowness - you know, so that instead of seeking the laser to a space on a disk, which might be quite far from where the laser is now, they seek it to the nearest location of the texture duplicate.
Other than that - I honestly can't see what there's to take all that space.
Ash2X- As for your observations that the PS3 doesn't have enough RAM. It has the same amount of RAM as the 360, it is just split differently... also, I've come to believe that the large install files have nothing much to do with the speed of the blu-ray disc drive, and everything to do with programmers not being familiar with the system. Most western games haven't had huge install files for one, while the biggest culprits have been Japanese developers working on their first projects on the system (Most notably Hot Shots Golf 5, DMC4, and Ninja Gaiden Sigma). COD4 for example doesn't need it, and it loads just fine, and runs as good as the 360 version. I'm not trying to spark system wars here, I just think the install files are the result of sloppy programming.rragnaar
CoD4 looks A LOT WORSE on PS3 than it does on 360:
http://www.dniq-online.com/misc/screenshots/ps3-vs-xbox/TheCoup.html- roll mouse over an image to see XBOX-360 version of a screenshot, roll mouse out - to see PS3 version.
As for the memory: on 360 you have 512 megabytes of _shared_ memory, and it's up to developers how much of that amount they want to allocate for textures. CoD4 screenshots show very clearly how the limitation of 256 megabytes of texture memory plays out on PS3, as compared to 360, without any special means to deal with it (like precaching textures on PS3 hard drive and then streaming it more aggressively).
I have heard a lot about how developers talking about how good blu-ray is for gaming for its huge space and capacity and blah blah..but what i haven't seen is the living proof of it. I mean if blu-ray is sooo good then why on earth are the games between ps3 and xbox 360 looks identical graphics wise. Please note that i am not bashing xbox..i am just asking a simple question. If developers say that blu-ray is good for making big games then why i don't see any difference? heck just yesterday i was reading the comment of the development team of far Cry 2 that how good Blu-Ray is for them because of the constant streaming world of the game. But every time i hear comments about blu-ray being good for gaming and when the game comes out i still don't see any difference regarding the graphics. I don't know either i am really ignorant or either there really are no results. If anybody know any answer to this then let me know.Mcgnnis1
Bluray might be good, capacity-wise, but the one in PS3 is not so good, speed wise. It's almost half the speed of XBOX-360's DVD drive. PS3 BD drive gives only 9 megabytes per second maximum speed, whereas XBOX-360 DVD drive gives 16: feel the difference!
That's why Devil May Cry 4, for example, forced to be installed onto PS3 hard drive and 360 version doesn't: even installed on HD, its loading times on PS3 are about as fast as XBOX-360's directly from the DVD.
Also, you won't see much of a graphical difference in cross-platform titles because of the BD. You will see the difference, however, where PS3 graphics might look worse on such titles, because on PS3 you have only 256MB of video memory for textures, whereas on 360 you can potentially have much more, due to the fact that it has 512 megabytes of _shared_ memory, so developers can use, say, 64 megabytes for code and data, and 448 megabytes for textures. Textures are usually what takes the most of the memory, so naturally you need more memory for them, than for code and other data. This is also the reason you might see more texture popping on PS3 than you would on 360 (in fact it's the combination of available texture memory and disk drive speed: you have more memory on 360 and the drive is faster, therefore less texture popping).