Blu-Ray good for gaming?

Sure it's good for gaming. It'll allow more storage space and we can have games with uncompressed textures making them look better. The more storage space the better.PlasmaBeam44

No i mean i know the benefits of blu-ray for gaming but have you seen any difference? I mean yeah games are getting better every day but i don't see a game that is on blu-ray better looking than the one on standard dvd. have you?

maybe when some of the better ps3 only games come out we will see a difference.. because of the 360 having smaller capacity discs and most games out for ps3 being multiplatform, its impossible that any game so far has used the overall space of the blueray disc..

you know what really amazes me is that how on earth does Crytek managed to put all that gorgeous graphics on a singgle DVD? I mean i'm no programmer or a pc specialist but i think that those graphics takes a lot of space and putting them on just one single dvd..amazing.

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.

Is Lost Oddysey on PS3? I heard it was 4 whole DvD's. That's like, just 1 Blu-Ray disc.

but tbh, I've noticed barley no difference except in storage space, even games with "compressed" files still look and sound great.

Blu-Ray is just for big T.V.'s...that's it. It was just made for 1080p.

Basically yes,if the BR-Drive-Speed is high egnough and in case of the PS3 it´s definetly not.The only major benefit whould be that you got more space and don´t have to compress that much.But the PS3´s BR-Rom is too slow and it don´t have egnough Ram to work with it,so it requires often a really big installation and it will increase for shure.But after all I prefer changing maybe 4 Dual-Layer-DVDs once while playing through a game and don´t have the problems the PS3´s BR got.

I bet it will be useful if the PC-Games use it,but after all BR is already "out" at Sony because it was a "in between solution" and a 500GB-Disc-System is planned.At least that´s what I´ve heard.

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.

As for whether or not blu-ray is good for gaming, it is hard to tell at this point. With the 360 being the default system that developers work on when making multiplat games, you can safely assume they aren't taking advantage of anything blu-ray has to offer. As for first party titles, who knows whether blu-ray is helping... I hope the following statement doesn't come across as controversial, as it isn't intended to be, I think that Uncharted, Ratchet, GT5: Prologue, Motorstorm, and even though I hate the game, Lair, are the best looking games I've seen this generation. But who is to say that blu-ray has anything to do with it? It could just be that the developers working on these projects have had the time and the budgets to really dig into the system's capabilities.

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... rragnaar

that´s true as long as it doesn´t come to the PS3s VRam which is with 256MB the half of the 360´s.The 360 was planned with 256MB,but came out with 512MB rumorrs say because a certain dev had complains (Epic)because it wasn´t possible to realise some games without it (well GoW).But the split RAM is of course the biggest problem.The 360´s Ram can be used for whatever it is needed,but the PS3´s not and you have to use what you get.

The slow BR-Drive seems to be the major problem because it takes too long to read the data.It´s not like the PS3 is worse then the 360,it´s just a bit unclever planned.It was too important as BR-Disc-Player if you ask me.An afaik it´s still the cheapest you can get (at least here).But we can speculate as long as we want,one comes to another and we can´t change it after all.We will see what the devs make of it.I definetly won´t buy one before 2010,to get shure.It´s not like the PS3 has many exclusive bombs and are so important that I can´t play them later.

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).

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).

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.

Mcgnnis1

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.

[QUOTE="Mcgnnis1"]

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.

dniq_gamespot

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.

To be honest i don't think that MGS4 looks similiar to resistance. I mean everything is more detailed, smooth animation and uber-realistic graphics, effects etc. I refuse to believe it. They are calling it the killer app of PS3 for a reason. Sure resistance is a pretty looking game but you just cannot compare a first gen and a second gen game graphics wise especially MGS4 to resistance. And about blu-ray good for gaming? what i am really looking for is that some developer or game would come and show us that blu-ray is the future for gaming because we can put more hd graphics, complex physics etc into this disc because of its large space size. Look at Lost Odyssey, the game is on 4 dvds. Don't you think that with the increasingly gorgeous graphics of videogames and now videogames going into more than 5 or 6 Gb worth of data someday DVD has to step aside?