no I got it for games. And considering that playing DVDs on your PS2 increased the chance of your disc drive dying on you...
7-8 years from now we'll be on a new system cycle. And looking at the launch games, I don't see where that extra space has made all the difference in quality. Barring Resistance, of course...but then again, someone who's played through all of Resistance will have to tell us what made all that space necessary. You're right; those future games may give us a better sense of how big a difference we're looking at. But as of now, the whole thing is overblown. Particularly when, say, Gears is still pretty quality at one disc and Blue Dragon is the only game that takes more so far. Certainly not worth the seconds it takes to change a disc (considering you have to do it to play a different game anyway).
I think theres a game on the PS3 (Ridge racer? genji?) that had so much unused space the developers had to create junk files to push the game files to the outer circle where they would be read faster.
True. We'll be in a similar situation that we're in now, which is why I brought it up. The PS2 just got some huge games like FFXII, Bully, Okami, and God of War 2 (still to come). I'd guess Sony would like something similar to happen with the PS3 late in its life, right before the PS4 comes out. That won't happen if disc space is a limitation, and the PS3 won't be around for 10 years as Sony would like it to. Most of the launch games probably don't need Blu-ray. According to some reviews I've checked out, GOW can be beaten in 6-7 hours; Resistance takes about 12-15 hours for most people I believe (plus I think it has more "lasting appeal" IIRC). Different games by different developers, but that is one thing that jumps out at me. Also, from what I understand, the in-game cutscenes in GOW would occasionally dip to <30 FPS, which could have been averted had they been able to pre-record them (ala Resistance). Kind of a minor thing, but something that helps improve game quality. That's assuming that only linear games require you to change a disc. Another thing to consider is that some games may be limited to using half of what DVD provides due to the penalty for switching layers (games that rely heavily on streaming in particular). This doesn't seem to be too much of a problem at this point, but this would mean that all streaming data (which would include redundancy to reduce seek times) would need to take up little more than 3GB. If I'm not mistaken, the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 reads the same from any part of the disc (unlike DVD drives, such as the one in the PS2, XBX, and 360). Resistance has some padding in it, but not all that much...~2GB IIRC. That would still put it at ~14GB if you take it out, twice the limit of DVD. Resistance could probably fit on a DVD if Insomniac made a bunch of design changes though.
You guys (and other people) are telling me that Resistance doesn't necessarily 'get really good' until later in the game, so it seems like kind of even in that regard. (I'm not sure what 'lasting appeal' is supposed to be, though. )
well in resistance, the farther you get, the bigger the battles get, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better. the story is so basic -- alien invades -- a hybrid soldier defeats them, there's no character development at all -- nathan hale the guy you play doesn't say a word at all, you don't even find out why he's the only hybrid. plot? there was none -- you go town to town in england until you find their lair. after the first few hours, i just played it for the sake of playing my $60 video game. btw, the cutscenes are really short and the majority of the story is told in "picture" scenes with a narrator.
That doesn't really have anything to do with the amount of content found in each game, so it doesn't even things out at all. Unless we start talking about the overall quality of the games or something like that. I was checking out IGN reviews when I was making that post, so that description came to mind. According to IGN: The "12-15 hours of single-player action, multiple (and very challenging) difficulty levels, four hidden weapons, unlockable secrets and skill points, and a ton of multiplayer options" help give Resistance a lot of "lasting appeal" apparently. Seemingly more so than Gears of War from what I understand.
RC Cola, since you don't own either system or game it's pretty difficult to take you seriously when you're arguing about the relative "lasting appeal" of one game vs. another, considering it is so esoteric and subjective in the first place, also considering that you are talking about one game that is widely acclaimed as one of the signature games of the last few years as having less of it.
"Lasting appeal" in the sense that I'm referring to is not really subjective. It is based on facts, such as the inclusion of bonus content, the amount of multiplayer options, game modes, difficulty options, etc., in each game. The more content provided in this area, the more likely it would appear that someone would like to continue playing a game (as IGN puts it). And in this case, Resistance does offer more than GOW from what I understand. Now whether or not someone would actually prefer spending more time playing GOW (either online or replaying it again, on a harder difficulty or whatever) versus doing the same for Resistance is subjective. Resistance does offer more content, but the quality of that content can still determine something like the replayability of a game. Obviously, someone wouldn't bother replaying Resistance or playing online if they felt the gameplay sucked. No debate there. In the end, I'm only trying to compare the amount of content in each game, not necessarily the quality of the content. Only one of those depends on disc space.
IMHO, Sony has made a big mistake pricing their console at $600.....everywhere I go people are talking about X-box and Wii and the PS3 is on the shelf gathering dust. First they overpriced the PSP, and it is getting killed, and now the PS3 is going through the same thing. Sony could be hurting if they don't get their head on straight. DD
AFAIK I'm only describing what IGN refers to as "lasting appeal," so maybe you can send them an email about this too. I don't really care what it is called; I was just trying to illustrate a point. More or less agreed, although this has been discussed since they announced the price almost a year ago. Don't know if the PS3 is getting killed (seems to be selling at a decent pace, according to Sony anyway...we'll find out more tomorrow I guess), but the price will be a big factor in how well the PS3 does. I'm guessing that, like the PSP, the PS3 might do pretty well (relatively speaking) in the first 6-12 months or so. But after that, things could get really ugly. Sony never cut the price of the PSP; if they do the same with the PS3 (no price cut for 18 months or so), it will probably see the same results. They're in a position where they can be pretty aggressive with price cuts. If they don't let greed get the better of them, they might be able to minimize the amount of "damage" the $500/$600 price is inflicting.
But for a lot of families it comes down to an either or......and right now, the X-box 360 is the choice of more people and will continue to be...so as long as Sony keeps their price up they will lose sales to people who only buy one console. The big winner is Microsoft....they have always been a distant player, but due to Sony doing some inexcusable things, they are gaining significant ground. DD
Yeah, I don't disagree about that. Until Sony does something about that price, Microsoft will benefit greatly. And actually, Sony still has to work on the other things too in order to swing things back their way. Even if the 360 and PS3 were the same price, the 360 would probably be preferred by most at this point (taking brand name and stuff like that out of the equation...though it probably wouldn't matter anyway). Along with the price, Sony has to work on getting better games (probably some that show a "tangible difference" when compared to 360 games), improving their online service, and fixing the numerous other issues they have with video output (no 720p for BD, no 1080i for games, no DVD upscaling, etc.) and backwards compatibility. They have a lot of things to work on if they want to outdo Microsoft (in NA anyway).
the bottom line is cost effectiveness, right now...wii is easily the most cost effective, yes after you buy another wiimote / nunchuk and a couple games it's closer to 400, that still makes it cheaper than the premium xbox360 and well below a ps3. I have a hdtv, have I looked at a ps3's visuals and been impressed? absolutely. do I want one, if I had 750 bucks to just throw away, yeah. like most people, I have more important things to buy. unless the price drops substantially, I'll be getting one of the xbox360 revisions (65nm process as opposed to 90nm...hdmi...120gb hd...hopefully they decide to throw in the HD-DVD too, but I doubt it). in the end it's about the games, wii is innovative, it's new...it's completely different from what ps3 and 360 are putting out there. that combined with cost is why they're winning and why they will win this generation. the truth is, (and this IS coming from a graphics w****) it's about gameplay, not graphics...the millions of wii owners are cementing that.
Yes, it does. You're saying that Resistance is a longer game, and that's where the content of Blu Ray comes into play...but if Resistance doesn't even get 'good' until halfway through, what's the point of those extra hours? And if you're really just trying to point to overall content, you probably shouldn't use a phrase like 'lasting appeal' to do it. Let IGN make their own mistakes.
The quality of the content has little to do with the benefits of having greater disc space. The game could have been terrible the entire 12-15 hours (that even seems to be the case for some people), but it would still have more content to offer. More disc space doesn't provide a little switch for developers that allows them to make great games; it can allow a developer to make their game longer and add more content if they so wish though. Think of Gears of War with an additional 4-5 hours of gameplay in the single-player campaign, additional (hidden) weapons, additional multiplayer options and modes, etc. GOW is an amazing game, and it would probably be much better with that. If nothing else, it should be obvious where the extra disc space came in handy. FWIW, not that I've played Resistance, but I wasn't under the impression that the game wasn't even good until halfway through...just that it gets (much?) better at that point. Minor point, but still.
Then shut up and stop comparing the two. You're splitting hairs of a dog you haven't seen, to make the Sony product look good. Oh what a surprise.
i'd much rather have an excellent game (gow) that is shorter as opposed to a longer game that is imo barely mediocre (resistance) and yes I've played both extensively.
How does what I'm talking about require me to play either game? If playing the games was a requirement for making certain statements, most/all video game analysts would be out of a job. I'm not comparing the overall quality of the games or anything subjective like that. The SP campaign in Resistance is longer than GOW. That's a fact, unless you can point me to something that suggests otherwise. Resistance also appears to offer more additional content along the lines of multiplayer options, hidden weapons, and things like that. That's a fact, unless you can prove otherwise. That's all I was trying to compare. Basically like comparing the fact that both games support 720p or that GOW has better visuals than Resistance (guess that could be subjective...but it is pretty close to a fact). I don't need to play the games to know those things. I am trying to make it seem like disc space might be an issue in the next few years for the 360, which does in fact favor Sony. Considering that the 360 is the first console to offer less disc space than its predecessor though, I think it should be obvious why I might be a little weary that things will be just fine. I would too (in fact, that probably applies to GOW vs Resistance too, especially since I don't care too much about online play). Is it at all possible to discuss certain aspects of games without bringing up the overall quality of those games with you guys? I never once tried to say that Resistance was better than GOW or anything like that just because it was a longer game. I'm only saying that Resistance is a longer game, and considering the amount of disc space it uses, game length is something that can benefit from a format such as Blu-ray when compared to DVD. As I told Rokkit, just think of GOW with additional content. That's basically what I was trying to say this whole time.
