Resistance: Fall of Man (PS3 Launch Title) Takes Up 22GB

I'm not sure why the Insomniac rep brought up those points, but that doesn't change the fact that the game is using 22GB (I think that was confirmed by a dev on their boards FWIW). I guess it can also help Sony if they want to promote the PS3 and Blu-ray, but I doubt that was the #1 priority on Ted Price's list when it came to developing Resistance.

Resistance? The impressions from E3 were very positive about it, and if Insomniac's past games are any indication, Resistance should be a lot of fun. Seeing weapon design in a game other than R&C (especially one in a more realistic setting) will be interesting.

If the MTV report is to be believed, only ~1GB of the 22GB makes up the audio (music+vocals) in the game (big surprise for me); the rest is mostly due to graphics, level data, and programming code. And apparently, Insomniac will use in-game cinematics instead of CGI movies (though I'm wondering if they changed their stance on that considering the game size).

I'm guessing the 22GB doesn't even include all the languages. It seems like that would be a lot more than 1GB, especially at higher bitrates (which they seem to want). Maybe the ~35GB rumor was accurate (though the rest may still be BS). I hope the DL BR discs will be ready when the PS3 launches.

 

It would be a good point if it was true. For the 3rd time though, the audio only took up ~1GB of the 22GB, according to MTV anyway (they could be wrong I guess). And Insomniac has said in the past that they probably won't be using CGI movies for the game (all in-game cinematics). I'm a bit perplexed as to how that can be, but that apparently isn't why the game is using so much space. Perhaps I was wrong about everything having to be compressed (although it really should be compressed...but that's the only explanation I can think of).

I wouldn't doubt it if Sony told that to all PS3 developers, including 3rd parties. I just don't think Insomniac is the type of developer that would put a system/format war ahead of the actual development of their game. If it so happens that making Resistance 20+GB will help make for a better game, then I'm sure Insomniac will make it so and promote the PS3 and Blu-ray (since they allowed Insomniac to make a better game). But I don't think they'll go out of their way to help fight in those wars (especially since they're not even owned by Sony; an actual 1st party dev could have been delegated to do that).

However, if you want to ignore this like everything else, fine. I have a feeling that there will be much more evidence in the future (particularly as the years go by).

As I mentioned earlier, there is really no way you can come up to that conclusion based on the media available on Resistance. Extra space allows for extra content. For most of the gameplay videos (and screens) we've seen pretty much the same bit content over and over (same 2-3 enemies, same level/environment, same weapons, no vehicles IIRC, etc.). It seems like Insomniac has only offered a glimpse into the world of Resistance (partly because of the story, and partly because they don't put in many of the post-processing effects until late in development, so the game may not be as "pretty" as they'd like).

For example, just about every Warhawk video/screen has shown the same thing: a Warhawk ship flying around some island (or whatever). The developers have already mentioned that the game will offer other environments, such as (IIRC) 500-man battles over vast areas of land (no water nearby) with tanks, jeeps, infantry, and stuff like that. Yet, pretty much all the videos/screens have yet to show ANYTHING like that. Based on the majority of what has been shown so far, you might just think it was a slightly better looking Blazing Angels game that takes place around a bunch of islands.

Perhaps when Resistance ships, there still won't be anything that appears to be worthy of all that data. I have no idea unfortunately. However, I think it is not a good idea to come to that conclusion based on a few gameplay videos, all based on the E3 build with a limited amount of content. A lot of the benefits of Blu-ray cannot really be shown in a few gameplay videos; heck, a whole bunch of data redundancy will cut down on load times, and I REALLY doubt you'll see that in any gameplay videos. Maybe 10GB of the game is just redundant data, and Resistance doesn't have any load times.

OT: Nintendo and a couple of other companies will have a conference during the night (around 3AM IIRC). I'm debating on what to do, but I'll probably be asleep then. It has been rumored that Nintendo might reveal pretty much everything on the Wii (price, release data, unannounced titles, etc.) since this will probably be the last big show for Nintendo before they launch (they don't attend TGS). For those that will be up around then and are into this stuff, check out the usual sources (a message board like Neo-GAF would probably be the best). If they do announce something big and no one mentions it on the BBS, I'll try to recap everything tomorrow (assuming I am not awake when the announcements are made). Just some FYI.

 

That's a hell of a lot more proof than there is stating we don't need Blu-ray (or something better than DVD). You guys can downplay all that evidence about DVD's limitations, but there certainly isn't much defending the other side of things (you'd think at least one developer would be saying DVD is fine, especially the 360 devs...yet some of them are saying it won't be). What kind of strong proof is out there that seems to point to DVDs being perfectly fine for games in the next ~6 years or so (and why would it be "necessary" instead of using CDs or some other cheaper, smaller disc format)?

I admit that there is a lot of uncertainty, but pretty much all signs are pointing in one direction from what I can tell.

As I said earlier, even though it does have to be compressed, I wonder if PS3 games are far less compressed due to disc space (360 games focus on compression to stay under 7GB, not really to fit into 512MB of RAM, although that is important too). If Resistance really is ~21GB worth of game data (no audio, no CGI, etc.), then the only thing I can think of that would create such a difference is that the data is far less compressed than on 360 games.

I'd definitely like to know more about how Insomniac is using up so much space.

Unless 360 devs just can't put many (if any) high-res textures and stuff like that, there probably won't be that much of a noticeable difference in the content shown, at least at first glance. It might look a little better on PS3 due to less compression, assuming the 360 version was compressed to fit on the disc and not the RAM (plus perhaps the Cell will be able to do more since it won't have to worry as much about decompressing content...but it already has a big advantage over the 360's CPU, so that will be difficult to see). Again, more space means more content, not better content than what was already there. The walls in two games might look the same graphically speaking, but the BR version might have 15 different walls of high-quality while the DVD version might only have 4. The caves looked pretty good in Oblivion, but I do wish that there was more variety; they all look the same pretty much (not to say that it wasn't pretty, just repetitive).

The only thing(s) that would be noticeable would be better (and varied) audio, better CGI, and maybe faster load times due to data redundancy (and more CPU power as mentioned earlier, although that would be difficult to credit to just BR in this scenario).

Think of the N64 and PS1. One used carts (forget what they maxed out at...didn't think it was much more than 100MB, if it even got that big), the other used CDs (700MB IIRC, and some used multiple discs). The games more or less looked the same (maybe even better on the N64...plenty of wars on this subject...plus better load times on the N64), but a lot of PS1 games had a lot more content (on average).

And, of course, you got more content on the PS1 due to developers not making games for the N64 because it was easier on them.


OT: Apparently Nintendo didn't say much of anything during their conference (announced some games like Mario Strikers and Battalion Wars for the Wii). There is a new MGS4 trailer, but I haven't had a chance to watch it yet. I'll post a link to it after I watch it.

 

So what's the difference between the DC-PS2 situation and the 360-PS3 situation? The DC launched at $200 and used a cheap, CD-based tech for their disc format (which actually offered almost twice the storage of CDs, which isn't bad...at least they didn't go backwards); the PS2 launched at $300, using DVD technology (which was more expensive than CD-tech, and didn't seem worth the extra $100 at the time). It might be 5-6 years later, but things seem to be repeating themselves (although instead of $200/$300, we have $400/$500). Even though DVD was a little more mature during its time than BR, the cost difference between the systems are the same...that might even suggest that the cost difference here will reduce over time (due to decreasing costs from mass-producing BR and making it a mature tech). If, for some reason, the 360 cost $200 and the PS3 cost $300, would there be a difference? Or would Sony still be forcing a more expensive format that might not be completely necessary?

The rest of your post contains a lot of good points (as usual). Rather than discussing this for another 24 hours or so, I think I'm just going to go on a short hiatus when it comes to this issue (other than possibly replying in another post or two regarding the DC-PS2/360-PS3 comparison I brought up).

We've picked this issue to the bone for almost a year (remember the 4-disc DVD 360 game rumor from almost a year ago?). And through that year, we probably don't know much more about it now than we did then (I don't anyway); we've just been recycling the same info, just in different flavors. As you said, it would be best to just wait until these games come out. We'll know more then. To be honest, even though I'm obviously in the "DVD is not enough" camp, I have no idea for sure if that's how things will turn out. The 360 could very well end up lasting 7+ years, have tons of great games (which compare favorably to PS3 games in terms of content), have great developer support, and only have small handful of games that require more than a single DVD (if any do anyway).

FWIW, I probably will keep on posting threads and info regarding any new stories involving this issue like I have been, but as far as strongly pushing my "DVD is not enough" stance, I think I'm done with that for a while. At least until the PS3 launches, in which case there should hopefully be a lot more info...preferably something involving a developer discussing how their game can take up 21GB of game data (no audio, no CGI, using compression to fit into RAM, etc.).

Of course, my memory sucks at times, so don't be surprised if I'm pulling out pages of developer quotes and 360 game sizes in a week or so.

 

I think it is stupid to ignore the $500 SKU, at least if we're talking about people who want to buy a gaming console. I agree that Sony was pretty stupid in not including HDMI in both SKUs (wouldn't have cost much, and it wouldn't cause so much confusion), but there aren't really any big benefits to gamers by using HDMI AFAIK (perhaps 1080p resolution in games/movies...which is still actually possible IIRC via component). The only people who would probably care that much would be the AV enthusiasts, and they don't care about being "forced" to buy a game console with an expensive format (to them, it is a hell of a deal to buy a $500-$600 BR player that also plays games and does other neat stuff). There's only one next-gen console SKU that has HDMI anyway (out of the 2 360 SKUs and the 2 PS3 SKUs), so if it is THAT important, then people are just out of luck if they don't want to spend $600 on a PS3.

Personally, if/when I buy a PS3, I'll most likely buy the $500 SKU (for comparison, I'd get the $400 Premium 360). I'd like to have the stuff in the $600 SKU (WiFi, CF/SD/MS ports, HDMI, 40 extra GB in my HDD, etc.), but that isn't really worth the extra $100 if I just want to play some games (especially since I can get some cheap accessories that supply some of those features). This is more like the PSP Core and Value packs instead of the 360 Core and Premium packs IMO (although we didn't get the PSP Core until WAY after Japan did).

As for this possibly being amplified due to higher prices, that does seem plausible, although I think it is kind of stupid. As I said in another thread though, I'd prefer it if Sony and MS designed their consoles with the ~$300 pricepoint in mind, even if it means launching later or taking things out (PS3 w/o HDD launching in Spring 07 could be $300-$400 perhaps?).

I agree with that, which is more or less why I brought it up. Despite all that stuff you said, I think most people tend to agree that we "needed" DVD last-gen...though whether we really "needed" it can be debated...just like we are debating whether we need BR (or something other than DVD) right now. The way I see it, if DVD was needed last-gen, BR (or something more than DVD) is pretty close to being needed this upcoming generation; obviously, you can make a case that both weren't needed though, which makes it difficult to say exactly what is needed. If you didn't think DVD was needed last-gen, I can see why you don't think BR is needed for next-gen. Assuming the DC/GC discs were "needed," we'd be going from ~1GB discs to ~7GB discs, rather than ~8GB discs to ~7GB discs (one of those seems fine for a next-gen transition...the other, not so much).

Maybe we could still get by with CDs or DC/GC discs. Or even less. I know that there is some PC project where the developers are making a FPS (with decent lighting/graphics, a number of enemies and weapons, sound+music, etc.) that fits under 96KB. Maybe even floppy disks are more than enough.

 

As I said, if BR and the PS3 allowed Insomniac to make a better game, I'm sure they wouldn't mind having their PR guys throw in some positive comments towards the PS3/BR. Just because they're promoting the PS3/BR doesn't necessarily imply that Insomniac places the PS3/BR over their game as far priorities go.

Sigh...as I've said earlier in the thread, disc space isn't THAT vital to graphics (and certainly not physics either). You'd get slightly better looking textures (assuming the RAM wasn't a limitation before) and possibly extra CPU power devoted to something other than decompressing content (which will still happen...but might be easier to do). As I noted earlier though, the PS3 already has a large CPU advantage, so it isn't really easy to see any benefit the CPU gets from Blu-ray (compared to 360 games).

While disc space won't necessarily provide better content (except for maybe audio if you're able to notice the difference), it would provide more content. I've brought up a couple examples of this already in the thread. Until the games are out, a proper comparison of the content in Resistance versus the content in other games would be impossible.

It depends on the game, but redundant data can take up a lot of space. If I'm not mistaken, the PC demo of Prey was like 400MB, while the 360 version was like 600MB-700MB (IIRC), and that was primarily due to redundant data being put in to keep load times under 45 seconds.

Without knowing a lot about the game, how the BR drive works, how the HDD will be used, and a number of other things, it is difficult to say for sure how much redundant data must be required in order to keep load times low (or even nonexistent).

Agreed.

You do make a good point. I don't think we're quite ready for that right now though. Despite what Phil says, I don't think we'll be able to transition over to that type of infrastructure until maybe the PS5 (although the PS4, and perhaps the PS3 to a lesser degree, will introduce it). We still need better broadband availability and bigger, cheaper HDDs to allow for that to happen...and that's assuming the average game won't use 20+GB of data. I think you might be a generation too early (next-next-gen with the PS4/720/Woo might be about the time we can stop focusing so much on new disc formats).

I'm not sure if you've read them, but Invisible Fan and I have had similar discussions in the past.

 

I have no idea about Resistance. I don't think they've said that much about the game, and you certainly can't tell much from the media shown so far (in regards to the type of game it is). I was also under the impression that it would be a fairly linear FPS, in the style of other FPS games. Perhaps longer in length (maybe 20-30 hours as opposed to say 10-15...or whatever). I suppose it could be a little more non-linear than past FPS games though. There is also the possibility that the game includes a large variety of environments. They can't reuse assets made for their London city whenever the player is fighting off enemies in rural parts of Russia (or whatever).

 

True, but prior to this generation, no console had succeeded at a price point higher than $300. Unless both the PS3 and 360 (Premium) fail, that's going to change.

Back then, $500 for a console seemed dumb when you could get a console for almost half the price. Now, if you don't like $500, you only have a $400 360 or a ~$200 Wii (and if you want a system with "next-gen" visuals, you only have the $400 360). And actually, the Wii might even be raising the bar as far as Nintendo home consoles go ($200+ at launch). Along with having two major players pushing consoles at >$300 prices, we might also have a generation where no console launches at <$200.

Video game consoles are getting more expensive. The PS3 is a part of that (and the worst offender), but it isn't the only one that is raising the price for having fun. It certainly is a different price for having fun nowadays (especially since gamers have apparently accepted the $60 price tag...thanks a lot guys).

Eh...whatever. If people are sold on the things the $600 SKU provides, they'll pay for it (or wait until it gets cheaper). Nothing else offers those features for that price anyway. Otherwise, they can go with the $500 SKU, which is pretty much exactly like the 360 Premium SKU (only with BR instead of DVD...plus the differences in specs I guess...and online play fees, though people won't really notice that).

How is it limited? And do you really think a large percentage of people who buy a PS3 will actually care that much about it? Some people don't even think there is much of a difference between HD movies and DVD movies. Do you think they'll care that much that they can't use HDMI?

And in any case, the 360 would be just as limited in that regard with its HD-DVD add-on (no HDMI AFAIK), but I doubt it will cause too many problems.

I was exaggerating there (especially on the floppy disk comment...those might even be more expensive that CD/DVD tech anyway...not sure).

The best cheap tech available might be the right choice...it just depends on where the boundaries are in order to see which is the best.

As I mentioned earlier in my post, whether or not the PS3 takes off, prices are up all across the board (unless the Wii retails for $200 or less). Gaming has gotten more expensive with these new consoles (no matter which one(s) you buy for the most part). After all, these machines can cure cancer. It is well worth the price.

And that's not even mentioning the handhelds ($150/$250 for a handheld, plus $40-$50 games). 35-40M of those handhelds have been sold in under 2 years too.