Xbox 360 version speculation

[safaribob]

I have a hard time believing that this is going to be as good as the PS3 version, disregarding the processing and graphic capabilities on both consoles, square enix said that they will not start working on the Xbox 360 version until they are completely done with the PS3 version, first and foremost if you are a final fantasy fan and you did not by a PS3 in anticipation for the next final fantasy game I really don't think that you are a true fan, and second lets take a look at previous cross over RPG's the last remnant was crap on the 360 the multiple discs drove me nuts and they reused textures and graphics way to much. there is no way that final fantasy xiii can even look near as good on 360 because of size constraints. The XIII demo was 5 gigabytes and that was one hour of play the 360 disc can hold only 9 gigabytes while the bluray discs that are being used now hold 25 gigabytes, and a dual layer holds 50 gigabytes, now lets look at how long this game will most likely be i would say to do the bare bones will most likely take 35- 50 hours depending on the player, now if a one hour demo i 5 gigabytes, and for every hour you put on the disc you need less and less room due to the reuse of textures and colors and sounds we are probably still looking at a good 35 or 40 gigabytes, which would fit nicely on a dual layer bluray but will take at lest 4 360 discs, I have a hard time believing that the 360 version is going to come to fruition.

[Whiplash]

I have a hard time believing that the 360 version is going to come to fruition.

Y-you're kidding, right?

[Wandering Hands]

Now, if a one hour demo is 5GB, shit all was compressed.

I've little doubt that it's going to be on multiple discs, but if people care about disc swapping that much, then they really need to sort their priorities. So people need to stop shitting themselves about size and understand that things are going to change.

[safaribob]

well in a sense yes, it is going to take forever to port it over and to re render everything, the colors on the 360 aren't as good, there is at lest 6-9 months of tweaking and changing that needs to be done after its ported, which could take 2-3 months, as well as they are not even starting till ps3 version is done. I think that even if it does happen its not gonna do the final fantasy name justice

[Kitmitsu]

the colors on the 360 aren't as good

You know nothing. This thread is invalid.

[rutea7]

i dont really care about the 360 version i was always planning on getting a ps3, got it yesterday. i doubt the 360 version will be much diferent but i dont think it will b as good.
i doubt the sales for the 360 will b worth porting it though and thats why i think square will regret this decision.
we'll see when it's out.

edit: besides, versus is still ps3 exclusive and i want to play both.

[safaribob]

You know nothing. This thread is invalid. i know nothing, okay so being a sophmore at penn state getting a degree in computer engineering means that i don't know how any of this works, yeah your right i know nothing

[chaosblade77]

I have a hard time believing that this is going to be as good as the PS3 version, disregarding the processing and graphic capabilities on both consoles, square enix said that they will not start working on the Xbox 360 version until they are completely done with the PS3 version, first and foremost if you are a final fantasy fan and you did not by a PS3 in anticipation for the next final fantasy game I really don't think that you are a true fan, and second lets take a look at previous cross over RPG's the last remnant was shit on the 360 the multiple discs drove me nuts and they reused textures and graphics way to much. there is no way that final fantasy xiii can even look near as good on 360 because of size constraints. The XIII demo was 5 gigabytes and that was one hour of play the 360 disc can hold only 9 gigabytes while the bluray discs that are being used now hold 25 gigabytes, and a dual layer holds 50 gigabytes, now lets look at how long this game will most likely be i would say to do the bare bones will most likely take 35- 50 hours depending on the player, now if a one hour demo i 5 gigabytes, and for every hour you put on the disc you need less and less room due to the reuse of textures and colors and sounds we are probably still looking at a good 35 or 40 gigabytes, which would fit nicely on a dual layer bluray but will take at lest 4 360 discs, I have a hard time believing that the 360 version is going to come to fruition.
What a mess of a sentence/paragraph/what the hell is this?

I have a hard time believing that this is going to be as good as the PS3 version, disregarding the processing and graphic capabilities on both consoles,
What you just mentioned are probably the biggest hurdles: getting the game to run to their standards on both architectures. Anyway...

square enix said that they will not start working on the Xbox 360 version until they are completely done with the PS3 version,
Companies say a lot of things. Do you really believe that they are going to sit on their hands until the PS3 version is done? I don't remember if it was here or on GAF that somebody had details about localization already starting. While it's extremely unlikely they would put any work on the port off until the PS3 version is being is being pressed/shipped like they said at E3, they also said the port would occur during localization - which has supposedly already started. In other words, there is a decent chance that what SquareEnix said contridicts itself. It's meaningless.

first and foremost if you are a final fantasy fan and you did not by a PS3 in anticipation for the next final fantasy game I really don't think that you are a true fan,
Regardless of the fact this is pretty ridiculous in the first place (since, you know, not every FF game has been on a PS console), this is your opinion on something that hardly relates to your topic at all.

and second lets take a look at previous cross over RPG's the last remnant was shit on the 360 the multiple discs drove me nuts and they reused textures and graphics way to much.
Yay, the first sentence finally ended.

So, you are comparing the quality of a no-name game by a B-level team at Square Enix to what is likely their most prized IP (either FF or DQ) by their best team? Yeah, that's fair.

Overlooking that, Last Remnant seems to have a lot of issues beyond re-used textures and the fact it's TWO discs. TWO. I don't really see how that can be a big deal unless your are constant switching back and forth, which to my knowledge is not the case.

there is no way that final fantasy xiii can even look near as good on 360 because of size constraints. The XIII demo was 5 gigabytes and that was one hour of play the 360 disc can hold only 9 gigabytes while the bluray discs that are being used now hold 25 gigabytes, and a dual layer holds 50 gigabytes,
Since you've apparently missed the other threads about this, I'll repost it here.

The demo is not compressed at all, nor does it use space anywhere near as efficiently as the final game will. Do you truly believe that small segment of the game will be 5GB on the final version? In that case, the final game, even on the PS3 (which has been confirmed to be one BD) will probably be under 15 hours, closer to 10 given how small and linear the demo is. You're a "true fan" right? So you know that's not going to happen.

now lets look at how long this game will most likely be i would say to do the bare bones will most likely take 35- 50 hours depending on the player, now if a one hour demo i 5 gigabytes,
See above, your math doesn't make sense, etc, etc.

and for every hour you put on the disc you need less and less room due to the reuse of textures and colors and sounds we are probably still looking at a good 35 or 40 gigabytes,
Reuse colors? What? Colors are colors, they have nothing to do with the game or even the console aside from the number of colors the GPU supports, and both the PS3 and 360 support 16 million if I'm not mistaken.

Just to make note of it, the number of hours I mentioned above takes re-used textures into account.

which would fit nicely on a dual layer bluray but will take at lest 4 360 discs, I have a hard time believing that the 360 version is going to come to fruition.
In all likelyhood, the game will be 3-4 discs on the 360 version. I don't see how that's a problem. You're a "true fan," right? So you're used to all of the disc switching from the PS1 games, right? If not, I don't think you're a "true fan." :aldo:



I'm not even going to bother with your other post, but no, it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about. Even if you had a degree in computer engineering it wouldn't magically make you any more correct.

[Falsate]

Regardless of the fact this is pretty ridiculous in the first place (since, you know, not every FF game has been on a PS console), this is your opinion on something that hardly relates to your topic at all.

Actually, he was refering to the main series of Final fantasy and as far as I can tell, Square Enix has released the past 6 (more or less) on the Playstation and it's successors. He didn't really say they were all on the PlayStation since everyone knows that.

Still, that seems more opinion based.

[Hynad]

i know nothing, okay so being a sophmore at penn state getting a degree in computer engineering means that i don't know how any of this works, yeah your right i know nothing


Well, in that case, you should study harder.

Data can be compressed, unlike what is seen in the demo.
Colors are the same for both systems. Both systems are xvYCC compliant.

Final Fantasy games came out on multiple CDs back in the PSOne era and nobody complained about it.

[Moklin]

" if you are a final fantasy fan and you did not by a PS3 in anticipation for the next final fantasy game I really don't think that you are a true fan"
oh god....be rational. Imagine that im a final fantasy fanatic and i only like final fantasy games, why bought a ps3 now instead of buying one cheaper in the release date of the game?
I hate when people say: " I bought my ps3 only for final fantasy 13". FF13 wasnt released yet, so why did you buy a ps3?" Why buy a console only because one game? T

"and second lets take a look at previous cross over RPG's the last remnant was crap on the 360 the multiple discs drove me nuts and they reused textures and graphics way to much"
The Last Remnant was technly crap because it is and not because its on the xbox360. The Last Remnant´s team already made a few games like The Bouncer for ps2 and it was crap too. Its an invalid argument, The Last Remnant wasnt released on ps3 yet, and possibly it ll never be released on ps3. If you want to compare you should look to games like Oblivion and Eternal Sonata. TLR was released for PC thought and it was a bit superior to 360´s version but this is because the team had more time to correct some flaws in the game and not because it wasnt on xbox360.
Now that i think of it....i dont know any game that was released both on ps3 and xbox360 which contained one disk for ps3 and multidisks for 360.


What is the problem of swaping disks?Really, tell to me waht is the problem. I cant see it. FF7 , 8 and 9 arent wrosts games because of it.
People who say this are typical ps3fanboys who got mad because sony lost ps3´s exclusivity
I would understand if you need to swap disks to return to previous locations like SO4 thought but i dont think SE will do that to a numbered final fantasy game.


"The XIII demo was 5 gigabytes and that was one hour of play the 360 disc can hold only 9 gigabytes while the bluray discs that are being used now hold 25 gigabytes"
Duh...why lost time to compress the demo? If this was true so the ps3 version would need to be multidisk too.

Kojima said that ps3 and xbox360 are very similars consoles. You know who is Kojima, right?
And now my opinion about this.....i dont know many things about ports and games development but i beleive ff13 ll be released on 360 with 2/3 disks and it ll be exactly like ps3´s version.

I dont have a next gen console but i ll buy a 360 in the summer, i would prefer a ps3 but i know im going to be happy with a 360 too, it has good exclusives too. I dont think its rational to ordinary teengares like me, who dont have many money, who have to study a lot for school and spend time with their friends and family to spend a fortune on a ps3. Just crazy the idea to spend 400 euros when you dont have many free time to play. Thats why im going to buy a 360. Lost Odissey and Mass Effect helped in my decision too.

[Falsate]

FF13 wasnt released yet, so why did you buy a ps3? Why buy a console only because one game?

It's driving their sales up right? Just like the mere demo of Final Fantasy XIII did. To them (Sony), it's all joy and money. I'm not opposing you or anything, simply adding to that. :O

[Kitmitsu]

i know nothing, okay so being a sophmore at penn state getting a degree in computer engineering means that i don't know how any of this works, yeah your right i know nothing

Well, in that case, you should study harder.

Data can be compressed, unlike what is seen in the demo.
Colors are the same for both systems. Both systems are xvYCC compliant.

Beat me to it but I think this answer pretty much sums up my opinion.

[safaribob]

well thats your opinion i have both a ps3 and a 360 and i have tested it with the exact same games every case ps3 colors are so much better, but whatever

this is a forum not english class

[Whiplash]

Being big time computer expert at Penn State, I'm sure you know that the Edit button on forums doesn't bite. Use it next time.

[Hynad]

well thats your opinion i have both a ps3 and a 360 and i have tested it with the exact same games every case ps3 colors are so much better, but whatever

this is a forum not english class


I have both consoles as well, and most often then not the colors for the 360 versions of games are more vibrant while the PS3 versions are warmer.

Not better, not worse.

[Astrozombie]

LOL You say you have/are getting a degree in computer engineering and yet you still say...

there is no way that final fantasy xiii can even look near as good on 360 because of size constraints

Size does not effect the graphics of a game, dipshit. The graphics chip and processing power do, and 360 wins the graphics chip department. Unless you're talking about compression, which unless you're from 1999, is rarely noticable to the human eye. I could go make a 10MB BMP picture for you, then the same picture as a 150KB JPG, and you would not be able to tell the difference.

And "reuse colors"? Wtf?

I gonna have to agree with Kitmitsu and say you know nothing. Either you're getting by in school by sucking your teachers off, or you're just bullshitting.

Also, time does not = size. Just because the demo was 5 GB and it took an hour to beat, doesn't mean another hour is gonna be another 5 GB. By that logic, this game is going to be 250 gigabytes at minimum. A LOT of that 5 GB was the game engine.

Please, learn about these things before you pretend to know what you're talking about. I suggest, if you really are trying to get a degree in computer engineering, you better get your act together.

Cause I'd fail you.

[Shiranui Reborn]

i dont really care about the 360 version i was always planning on getting a ps3, got it yesterday.

i iz jealousss :aldo:

but yeah this thread is bullshit, its not like we haven't seen this argument before somewhere else and we don't have anything to prove any point

[Wandering Hands]

A LOT of that 5 GB was the game engine.


I thought a lot of that 5GB was the FMVs. :cookie:

[Falsate]

If anything, they will have to configure the functions and tasks of the game to use the Xbox 360's processor as both consoles operate in different ways. Also, I want to point out that 1 Hour doesn't nessecarily mean it will take 5.09 Gigs. Think of the content within the game or at a particular map.

The graphics chip and processing power do, and 360 wins the graphics chip department.

That is true too, and the PS3 wins the CPU. Those Cell Broadband Engines require more work than production using the Triple Core Xenon.

I thought a lot of that 5GB was the FMVs.
So did I.

[Astrozombie]

Yes the CPU is much more powerful, but also much more under used. Nobody seems to want to spend all that time on it, so they usually leave a lot of it's power completely unused.

The White Engine supposidly uses 4 cores, so there's already 2 extra possible cores down the tubes, leaving it not much more powerful than the 360's CPU.

Now, with the 360's GPU being more powerful than the PS3's, I'd have to say they'll probably look and run EXACTLY THE SAME. The only difference I think there will be is that 360 might have 2 or 3 disks. It's all pretty much up to how much work Square wants to put into it.

[Moklin]

OMG..........now that i noticed......it looks like we are discussing the first multiplataform game ever!!!

[ExodusVII]

OP is kind of a fanboy rant, so I'll keep this short. 360 version won't be as good as PS3 version. Obviously. But it's going to be a small difference between the two. The 360 can easily handle the game in a few discs with compression. Swapping discs isn't worth complaining about, 360 users get the awesomness that is achievements and for space, most of the 5gb on the demo is the engine, as well as uncompressed videos for all the FMVs and the trailer FMVs.

As for not being a true fan if you didn't buy a PS3 years before the release of FFXIII in preparation for it. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Seriously, most ridiculous statement ever.

[Hynad]

360 version won't be as good as PS3 version. Obviously. [...] most of the 5gb on the demo is the engine, as well as uncompressed videos for all the FMVs and the trailer FMVs.



These claims are unsupported by any official claims(Square-Enix)/not provable as of now, and are therefore completely devoid of credibility.

[Astrozombie]

Well it's sensible seeing as FMVs and game engines tend to take up quite a bit of space, when you look at other games.

A lot more than a single map and a few character modes.

[Hynad]

Lost Odyssey did quite well using only 4 discs.

And I'm sure the expertise of Square-Enix is above Mistwalker's and Feelplus's. So I have no doubt they can do a pretty good job with the same amount of discs.

[ExodusVII]

Don't get me wrong, the 360 version is going to be awesome and SE has the budget to make it a fantastic title. I just think that having been developed on the PS3 first, and having the freedom to leave it uncompressed, the PS3 version is going to run a little smoother and look a little crisper. It's not unsupported information, every multi-platform title thus far this generation, has run better on the console it was initially developed for.

As for what I said about the demo, how can you possibly say that what I said is devoid of credibility? Every game of all time has had significant amounts of space designated to its engine and, if applicable, cutscenes. The fact the cutscenes were uncompressed could only have added to the space consumed and the extra trailers thrown in probably didn't help optimise it either. It's why all demos are significantly (relatively) larger than the finished product. Look at XBL marketplace, all the demos I download are about 1gb in size and last 10-30minutes. But the full games, many times the length of the demo, fit happily onto 4.7 and 8.4GB discs.

It's not that what I said is totalitarian fact about FFXIII but unless it stands outside of the trends shown by almost every game ever made, we can safely assume that certain things are going to become apparent come release.

[Thunder]

Lost Odyssey did quite well using only 4 discs.

And I'm sure the expertise of Square-Enix is above Mistwalker's and Feelplus's. So I have no doubt they can do a pretty good job with the same amount of discs.
Can you explain the "only" part? Because I'm not sure how 2nd gen platform game can do quite well using only 4 discs. Its barely acceptable :aldo:

[Astrozombie]

It's not unsupported, every multi-platform title thus far this generation, has run better on the console it was initially developed for.

I donno about that, Oblivion for PS3 pwnd oblivion for 360 simply because they had more time to work on it.

@ Thula. Hmm I guess all those other games that have come out this gen (7th gen, not 2nd, wtf) using multiple disks were just BARELY acceptable? Yeah, right.

Big fucking whoop, so there's not enough size on one disk. It's been like that with many Final Fantasies, yet you're complaining about this one because... omg it's on the 360?

Get over it.

[BlizzarddeX]

Yes the CPU is much more powerful, but also much more under used. Nobody seems to want to spend all that time on it, so they usually leave a lot of it's power completely unused.

The White Engine supposidly uses 4 cores, so there's already 2 extra possible cores down the tubes, leaving it not much more powerful than the 360's CPU.

Now, with the 360's GPU being more powerful than the PS3's, I'd have to say they'll probably look and run EXACTLY THE SAME. The only difference I think there will be is that 360 might have 2 or 3 disks. It's all pretty much up to how much work Square wants to put into it.

First and formost, Xbox 360 is doomed. This is because the game is going to be 6 or more disk.

People have yet to notice but the FMVs were in full HD 1080p and takes most of the space in the demo.

For link: http://defaultprime.com/2009/04/16/509-the-amount-in-gigabytes-that-you-will-use-downloading-the-final-fantasy-xiii-demo/

For 1080p link: http://www.ff-xiii.net/index.php?page=news&p=more&numb=376

That takes much more data than usual 720p. So no compression is going to help Xbox 360 since first and foremost, PS3 is going to struggle to fit in the game in a single 50gb dual layer BD, not that its impossible.

For example, SE does decide to do the game in 1080p. Then the storage requirement for FMV is going to skyrocket since most final fantasy game have 60 mins of CGI.

Now, looking at MGS4, most of the 50gb storage was used because of FMVs and lets not forget it was only 720p. Also that actual game was also short.

So, lets face it, PS3 is going to struggle to cope with a single dual layer BD to fit in 1080p cut scene. And funny thing is we have not even started on gameplay and ingame cut scene.

How can people even comprehend the game running in Xbox 360 without 6 or more disk is beyond me. But its peoples choice if they wants to play a game with 6 or more disk.

A single dual layer DVD is 8.9 GB. So that said, its more like this.

8.9GB x 6 = 53.4 gb. And that covers a single BD dual layer 50gb. But what happens when SE is forced use another 25gb BD.

Its more and more likely between 15gb - 20gb is going to be used to fit in the cut scene if they are indeed in 1080p and also 1hour long, if FF7 advent children was ~30gb while only being in 720p only. Its currently looking highly unlikely to fit these much data into a dual layer BD if the game by any chance is 1080p with 1 hour cut scene and 50 hours of gameplay.

Lets face it, its impossible what SE is trying to do at this moment.


I do wander but is SE really going to do FF13 in 1080p. It would be really good for the fans but at the same time bad for Xbox 360.:D
---------------

Also to point out but there is a reason behind Sony using a weaker GPU than Microsoft. Sony hopes to use the cell processor as a co-processor and that puts them miles ahead. But even then PS3 "RSX" is not half that bad being one generation behind and can still put up a valiant fighting.

The only Sony miscalculated was they thought developers would find it easy to use Cell in conjunction to RSX to bring greater quality and power to the game. Pity it did not work out, but they had a decent plan and it might still not be over.

[Shiranui Reborn]

bitchezz and hoes be hatin' on the 360:wtf:

[Zezlar]

I bought my PS3 for Final Fantasy XIII. I will admit that, it was the "main" reason I got it. I love Final Fantasy, and I really don't give a fuck if you hate that some people like the series so much that they will buy a console for it.

Also, who cares about the 360 disks, it's made by a AAA team at SE, they will not fuck up. END OF STORY.

[ExodusVII]

I donno about that, Oblivion for PS3 pwnd oblivion for 360 simply because they had more time to work on it.


Yeah that's a fair point. Games like Oblivion and Eternal Sonata are delayed ports though. They should be better on the second console. As for same time releases, the initial development console is where its at. So I'll re-evaluate what I said; Most games will run better on the platform they were initially developed for, provided that the release dates don't allow for further development on one version.

@ Biz

What you said made little sense, don't rage, listen. Firstly, when you're referring to the 360 being doomed, I hope you were only talking in the context of FFXIII because currently its far outsold the PS3. (For better or worse). Second, you do realise its possible to run the game at 1080p on the PS3 and compress it to 720p for the 360 right? Third, MGS4 is by no means a short game and the graphics are actually run at a 1080p/720p compromise. MGS4 also has an obscene amount of cutscenes which take up far more space than the gameplay does. FFXIII is, in all likeliness, not going to contain anywhere near as much video content as MGS did. And MGS4 isn't multiplatform so there's no problem to tackle. Fourth, you're working on the assumption that the space required for both versions of the game will be exactly the same, in which case why are SE spending so long porting and optimising the game for the 360? Fifth, how can people comprehend FFXIII being on less than 6 discs for the 360? Well I would guess because they apply some logic to the problem and realise that SE, with such a large development team, will be able to render the whole game at a lower spec for a DVD release. Finally I'd like to point out that noone is chosing to play the game on multiple discs; In an ideal world everyone would get it on one disc but given that FFXIII is now seeing a 360 release, 360 users aren't going to buy a new console in order to play a slightly more optimised experience. Especially given that most people, amazingly, don't mind changing a disc every 10-15 hours of gameplay.

[Fenryr]

FFS, this thread is going in the nigh same direction as that idiot Doomed_Soul128931982748124's topic.

I suggest we rename this topic ps3 vs xbox360 "different member, same shit".

[ExodusVII]

@ Fenryr

As if a thread called "Xbox 360 version speculation" followed by an OP like that, followed by posts people called Bliz with as much biased as possible could go any other way.

Both versions are going to be amazing. End of.

[Hynad]

First and formost, Xbox 360 is doomed. This is because the game is going to be 6 or more disk.
This is taken out of your ass. You have no idea about that. Just like the rest of us.
People have yet to notice but the FMVs were in full HD 1080p and takes most of the space in the demo.

For link: http://defaultprime.com/2009/04/16/509-the-amount-in-gigabytes-that-you-will-use-downloading-the-final-fantasy-xiii-demo/

For 1080p link: http://www.ff-xiii.net/index.php?page=news&p=more&numb=376
You have yet to notice that most games can run on 1080p resolution. Be it on the PS3 or the 360. Even if the game doesn't have a native 1080p resolution, most games are up-scalable to that Full HD resolution. Example of that? Killzone 2, which has a native resolution of 1080i. Go in the Display options of your PS3, un-mark every available resolutions except for 1080p and run your game. Some games don't allow it and will give you a black screen with sound only (like Mirror's Edge and Street Fighter IV) or will downscale to (>_<) 480p, but many will run at 1080p even if its not their native resolution.
That takes much more data than usual 720p. So no compression is going to help Xbox 360 since first and foremost, PS3 is going to struggle to fit in the game in a single 50gb dual layer BD, not that its impossible.
Here's what you'd get if you'd take the time to research instead of assuming stuff that are beyond your knowledge:

---Speaking of which, you're using Bluray now with PS3, but have you run into any storage space difficulties?
Kitase: Only as to whether we'd use a 1 or 2 layer disc, but that's about it. Add to that, with the PS3, you have a hard drive too. If anything, we struggled more with the memory aspect.

Source: Dengeki http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6815&highlight=dengeki
For example, SE does decide to do the game in 1080p. Then the storage requirement for FMV is going to skyrocket since most final fantasy game have 60 mins of CGI.So far the game has been reported to run at a native 720p resolution. The game might be upscalable to 1080p. From the link you posted, the trade-off of having a reall 1080p resolution (that might be used for CGI cut-scenes on the PS3) and an upscaled 720p to 1080p resolution is hardly noticeable, and a fairly good enough compromise to achieve similar results.
Now, looking at MGS4, most of the 50gb storage was used because of FMVs and lets not forget it was only 720p. Also that actual game was also short. There are no FMV cut-scene in MGS4 (except for those really strange "loading commercials". Everything is rendered using the game's engine. The struggle they had to cram everything on a dual-layer BD was because they chose to compress as little as possible to have the best sound possible and as little loading as possible.
So, lets face it, PS3 is going to struggle to cope with a single dual layer BD to fit in 1080p cut scene. And funny thing is we have not even started on gameplay and ingame cut scene.
According to the interview I already linked, you're spiting bullshit there.
How can people even comprehend the game running in Xbox 360 without 6 or more disk is beyond me. But its peoples choice if they wants to play a game with 6 or more disk.
How you manage to get infos that Square-Enix hasn't even nearly mentioned is beyond me. You have nothing to back up your claims. In fact, I already established that you're full of bullshit with that interview I linked.
A single dual layer DVD is 8.9 GB. So that said, its more like this.

8.9GB x 6 = 53.4 gb. And that covers a single BD dual layer 50gb. But what happens when SE is forced use another 25gb BD.

Its more and more likely between 15gb - 20gb is going to be used to fit in the cut scene if they are indeed in 1080p and also 1hour long, if FF7 advent children was ~30gb while only being in 720p only. Its currently looking highly unlikely to fit these much data into a dual layer BD if the game by any chance is 1080p with 1 hour cut scene and 50 hours of gameplay.

Lets face it, its impossible what SE is trying to do at this moment.
Let's face it, you mention the amount of data that each media can hold, yet you mention that the game probably won't be compressed on the PS3 version. The same isn't necessarily true for the 360. The 360 is faster than the PS3 to uncompress data. That's one of the reason why the developers choose not to compress data on the PS3 versions of their games.

Your maths are also quite wrong. A 2 hour long movie at 1080p resolution takes roughly 8GB. Divide that by 2 to have your "expected" hour and guess what? You only get 4 GB! At 720p, less than half of that space is required.

I do wander but is SE really going to do FF13 in 1080p. It would be really good for the fans but at the same time bad for Xbox 360.:D
Fanboyish trash if I ever saw any.

Also to point out but there is a reason behind Sony using a weaker GPU than Microsoft. Sony hopes to use the cell processor as a co-processor and that puts them miles ahead. But even then PS3 "RSX" is not half that bad being one generation behind and can still put up a valiant fighting.

The only Sony miscalculated was they thought developers would find it easy to use Cell in conjunction to RSX to bring greater quality and power to the game. Pity it did not work out, but they had a decent plan and it might still not be over.A reason to use weaker technologies?

As if Sony PLANNED on using a weaker technology. Sony gave the contract to NVidia and they didn't deliver as good as ATI for the Xbox 360. End of story.
It wasn't a choice per se. ATI just happened to outperform NVidia for once.




_________________________

EDIT: Sorry Exodus, there were so many "glitches" in my post that I deleted it, and tried to fix it before re-posting it... I used too many text format options that it became kind or hard to read...

So your comment isn't at its correct place for that reason. @_o

[Astrozombie]

First and formost, Xbox 360 is doomed.
Oh really, is that why it's kicking PS3's ass? The amount of fanboyism in your post is disgusting. Your entire post is rubbish.

What the fuck is the deal about having the change the disk every 7-10 hours? Is it REALLY that hard? But no, I guess FF7, FF8, and FF9 were all shitty "doomed" games because they had multiple disks? Oh wait, no they weren't, they were huge successes. That makes your logic very... illogical? In other words, you're a fuckin' retard.

Please, don't post before you think, and please don't pretend to know things that you really don't know one shit about.

[Hynad]

Well, the PS3 is slowly catching up with the 360 when it comes to console sales.

Every Final Fantasy has helped sell consoles throughout history. Especially the first title in a console generation (FF IV/VII/X... and everything seem to indicate that FF XIII will sell like hotcakes).

And although not a definite and completely reliable source, all the polls I see on the internet indicate that most people will buy FF XIII for the PS3 (with roughly 25% going for the 360 version). So my guess is that Final Fantasy XIII is going to help sell a lot more PS3 when it'll come out, narrowing the gap with the 360 in the process.

[Astrozombie]

But I doubt it's going to close the 7 million gap that it is (last time I checked anyhow).

I perfer the PS3 myself, and this year definitely looks better for PS3, but to say that 360 is doomed is just totally retarded.

[ExodusVII]

Well, the PS3 is slowly catching up with the 360 when it comes to console sales.

Every Final Fantasy has helped sell consoles throughout history. Especially the first title in a console generation (FF IV/VII/X... and everything seem to indicate that FF XIII will sell like hotcakes).

And although not a definite and completely reliable source, all the polls I see on the internet indicate that most people will buy FF XIII for the PS3 (with roughly 25% going for the 360 version). So my guess is that Final Fantasy XIII is going to help sell a lot more PS3 when it'll come out, narrowing the gap with the 360 in the process.

With the current release line up, the PS3 is well set to catch up to the 360 in sales this year. But as for FFXIII selling more on the PS3 upon release, I highly doubt it. Every large multiple platform release this generation has sold better on the 360, mainly due to 2:1 sales in north america. As for polls taken so far, they've all been on dedicated fanbase websites, and as far as credibility goes, especially for the FF franchise, the data is going to be heavily skew towards the PS3 rendering them invalid as statistical evidence. You did already point this out though so I have no idea why I am typing this....

[Hynad]

As for polls taken so far, they've all been on dedicated fanbase websites, and as far as credibility goes, especially for the FF franchise, the data is going to be heavily skew towards the PS3 rendering them invalid as statistical evidence. You did already point this out though so I have no idea why I am typing this....


To be exact, most polls I saw were on general gaming sites (RPGamer, Gamefaqs, IGN). Sites that are visited by both PS3 and Xbox 360 fans .

[ExodusVII]

To be exact, most polls I saw were on general gaming sites (RPGamer, Gamefaqs, IGN). Sites that are visited by both PS3 and Xbox 360 fans .

Touché.

I haven't really looked elsewhere for FF info so I guess I'm not qualified to pass judgment. I maintain that FF's fan base has been established on the Sony side of things though. The extent it is embraced by the 360 populous wont be seen until release and until then I can't see the 360 even coming close to "winning" one of these poles.

This said, I'm definitely buying the PS3 version. Might buy the 360 version later just for the achievements; They can be a great way of extending the life of a stagnant game.

[BlizzarddeX]

This is taken out of your ass. You have no idea about that. Just like the rest of us.


Really of my ass or just logic. Are you going to say 4 disk. Are you going to say 5 disk. Really, look around more and everyone is saying Xbox 360 is going to be "soooooo" many disk.

The only thing I did wrong was say specifically the game would be on 6 or more disk, and I am not wrong and neither can you prove me wrong. I you can prove to me why the game would run on 4/5 disk only then lets see the reason. Or else I just used a guess and its my own right to say something.

Its not taking from my ass, but you seem to take it from your ass to argue over a opinion.



You have yet to notice that most games can run on 1080p resolution. Be it on the PS3 or the 360. Even if the game doesn't have a native 1080p resolution, most games are up-scalable to that Full HD resolution. Example of that? Killzone 2, which has a native resolution of 1080i. Go in the Display options of your PS3, unmark every available resolutions except for 1080p and run your game. Some games don't allow it and will give you a black screen with sound only (like Mirror's Edge and Street Fighter IV), but many will run at 1080p even if its not their native resolution.


Oh, how amazing. What’s your point again here. It doesn't make a difference in looks but when it comes to data storage, even you have to agree native 1080p takes more data than or the so call up-scaled 720p, fake 1080p.

I don't care about the picture difference and I have seen it with the image comparison.

I was taking about storage difference between 720p and 1080p. Don't know what you are talking about here in the first place.

1080p takes more storage than the 720p


Here's what you'd get if you'd take the time to research instead of assuming stuff that are beyond your knowledge:

---Speaking of which, you're using Bluray now with PS3, but have you run into any storage space difficulties?
Kitase: Only as to whether we'd use a 1 or 2 layer disc, but that's about it. Add to that, with the PS3, you have a hard drive too. If anything, we struggled more with the memory aspect.

Source: Dengeki http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6815&highlight=dengeki


Wow, like I have not read the information before. Sure, its going to be in a dual layer 50gb BD disk, with ~20gb of CGI at 1080p and leaving it 30gb for the game after compression.

What’s your point here. You did read the part I said, "its not impossible". Even then its not simple as you idiotically put the link in. Even then they are going to struggle since compression a RPG is not simple as a action shooter.

To me I personally believe SE is going to opt for 30mins of CGI and more ingame cut scene which doesn't take that much data. Opinion is opinion. Live with it since you seem to think its really that simple as Kitase put it.

But for some of us, SE lies are getting the better of us and if they indeed do the game in 1080p native and opt out of up-scaling, then sure, they are going to struggle. Or can you prove my comment wrong and say I was wrong and back it up with a solid reason.




So far the game has been reported to run at 720p. The game might be upscalable to 1080p. From the link you posted, the trade-off of having a reall 1080p resolution (that might be used for CGI cut-scenes on the PS3) and an upscaled 720p to 1080p resolution is hardly noticeable, and a fairly good enough compromise to achieve similar results.


Thats your opinion. I am not SE so I can't say they will do it 720p and just do a up-scale or do it natively 1080p.

But my point was again, if the game is done in natively at 1080p then there is going to be some struggle.




There are no FMV cut-scene in MGS4 (except for those really strange "loading commercials". Everything is rendered using the game's engine. The struggle they had to cram everthing on a dual-layer BD was because they chose to compress as little as possible to have the best sound possible and as little loading as possible.


Right, thats why Hideo Kojima is angry that he couldn't fit everything in, has to cut things of, missed things of that he originally intended. Oh, did I forget to mention that the game runs 1024x768 and not the native 720p anyways.

So, guess what, if it 50gb dual layer can cause MGS4 problem while not even being native 720p, then I do wander how much a 50 hours RPG like Final Fantasy going to fair.

Really, you need to do your own research. Also Halo runs at 640p and for PS3 GTA4 runs at 640p native.




According to the interview I already linked, you're spiting bullshit there.

Right, :rolleyes:


How you manage to get infos that Square-Enix hasn't even nearly mentioned is beyond me. You have nothing to back up your claims. In fact, I already established that you're full of bullshit with that interview I linked.


Its a pity but I wish I was indeed full of bullshit but its hurts when you see the facts.

Not facts, as in solid confirmed facts but facts as in logic. For example,

8.9gb x4 =35.6 gb
8.9gb x5 =44.5 gb
8.9gb x6 =53.4 gb

So, sure Xbox 360 is going to use 4 disk (35.6 gb) because it can do without the rest of the data that is included in the 50gb. Sure Xbox 360 can do it with 5 disk (44.5 gb) because it can do without the rest of the data that is included in the 50gb.

And if not, then by logic, why I am wrong in making a guess that its going to be 6 or more disk unless you want to tell me how SE is going to fit in the extra data into a disk that has the maximum capacity of 8.9gb.

I am the one with the bullshit or you since you can't count. Seriously, what’s wrong with making a logical guess that makes more sense since what you are coming out with?

Sure, SE haven’t said anything but neither have they confirmed anything. But as it stands, its going down hill with the data requirement that Xbox 360 is going to face.




Let'S face it, you mention the amount of data that each media can hold, yet you mention that the game probably won't be compressed on the PS3 version. The same isn't necessarily true for the 360. The 360 is faster than the PS3 to uncompress data. That's one of the reason why the developers choose not to compress data on the PS3 versions of their games.


Where the hell are you coming with this information. If PS3 is not going to have FF13 compressed then the game file would be, as an example:

5gb (1h demo) x50 hours game play =250gb

So, where did you get the idea about not compressing the data for PS3. Everything gets compressed for PS3, or else we would have games the size of >100gb. Good for gaming but bad for company.

Also, how fast you uncompress data is not the point. Its how much you can store with compression.

Last time I checked, Blue-ray has the better technology than DVD. I might be wrong but then I would wander why did they even make the retarded blue-ray format.




Fanboyish trash if I ever saw any.


Hold it there! Last time I checked, I still have the multi-disked (4 disk) FF8 and FF9 in my house. So no way I am trashing Xbox 360, since I like to play some games in multi-disk as it gives a different experience.

But I was just point it out, Xbox 360 is likely going to have 6 or more disk. So, its bad for them since I don't a game that is 6 or more disk.

I do even wander if you played ff8 and ff9 fully and how many times as well to even call me a fanboy.




A reason to use weaker technologies?

As if Sony PLANNED on using a weaker technology. Sony gave the contract to NVidia and they didn't deliver as good as ATI for the Xbox 360. End of story.
It was a choice per se. ATI just happened to outperform NVidia for once.


You don't even know how much Microsoft paid ATI and if its greater than Sony paid to Nvidia for the GPU.

God have mercy on me for arguing with someone like you. Seriously, they spent $ million on making Cell processor (that is not really a CPU but more of a CPU+GPU hybrid). If they did not use that much money then they can just use the same amount of money on a better graphic's card by doing what Microsoft did.

How thick can you get if you can't understand the difference. Also, RSX is not that bad and neither can it not do what 80% (my guess) what Xenon can do.

Sure it makes so much sense to pay like this:

Spent millions on making a high-end CPU that is more like a GPU and then give a lot of money to Nvidia for their high-end, one generation behind graphic card. Sure, you make a lot of sense but I do wander if that thick head in Sony who did that got saked yet since you would have if you were in their shoe right now.

------------Fanboy, fanboy ------------but the only fanboy I see here seems--------- it is you:lol:--------what a joke you are.

[Hynad]

:rolleyes: You clearly didn't read my last comment at all.


Okay here goes:


Really of my ass or just logic. Are you going to say 4 disk. Are you going to say 5 disk. Really, look around more and everyone is saying Xbox 360 is going to be "soooooo" many disk.

The only thing I did wrong was say specifically the game would be on 6 or more disk, and I am not wrong and neither can you prove me wrong. I you can prove to me why the game would run on 4/5 disk only then lets see the reason. Or else I just used a guess and its my own right to say something.

Its not taking from my ass, but you seem to take it from your ass to argue over a opinion.
You didn't state anything as an opinion. You affirmed that the game was going to be 6 or more discs.

This is because the game is going to be 6 or more disk.
This is bullshit until officially confirmed. Which it hasn't been.
Oh, how amazing. What’s your point again here. It doesn't make a difference in looks but when it comes to data storage, even you have to agree nativefake 1080p or the so call up-scaled 720p.

I don't care about the picture difference and I have seen it with the image comparison.

I was taking about storgae difference between 720p and 1080p. Don't know what you are talking about here in the first place.

1080p takes more storage than the 720p My point,which was quite clear, is that if an upscaled resolution looks just about as good as a higher native resolution (like 720p upscaled to 1080p being roughly as good as a native 1080p resolution) then S-E can work things up a little and manage to cram all the data on a reasonable amount of DVD-9 without much of an overall quality trade-of.
Wow, like I have not read the information before. Sure, its going to be in a dual layer 50gb BD disk, with ~20gb of CGI at 1080p and leaving it 30gb for the game after compression.Did you even read my last post? Look it up yourself. A 2 hour long 1080p video takes roughly 8 GB of space. That means less than your estimated 20GB for a single hour.

What’s your point here. You did read the part I said, "its not impossible". Even then its not simple as you idiotically put the link in. Even then they are going to struggle since compression a RPG is not simple as a action shooter.
Seriously, how do you even come up with claims like that?
To me I personally believe SE is going to opt for 30mins of CGI and more ingame cut scene which doesn't take that much data. Opinion is opinion. Live with it since you seem to think its really that simple as Kitase put it.
It's certainly as simple as that according to him, a professional game producer. You know, someone that is actually working in the game industry and knows his stuff, by definition, more than you do.
But for some of us, SE lies are getting the better of us and if they indeed do the game in 1080p native and opt out of up-scaling, then sure, they are going to struggle. Or can you prove my comment wrong and say I was wrong and back it up with a solid reason.
Your comments are nothing more than presumptions on your part. You have nothing to back them. Hence why I call your blathering nothing more than bullshit.
Thats your opinion. I am not SE so I can't say they will do it 720p and just do a up-scale or do it natively 1080p.
If you're not S-E, then why do you try to pretend like you know stuff that S-E didn't even affirm? The game will end up on as many discs as they judge reasonable. It will be in whatever quality that they judge possible for them to harness.
Right, thats why Hideo Kojima is angry that he couldn't fit everything in, has to cut things of, missed things of that he originally intended. Oh, did I forget to mention that the game runs 1024x768 and not the native 720p anyways.

So, guess what, if it 50gb dual layer can cause MGS4 problem while not even being native 720p, then I do wander how much a 50 hours RPG like Final Fantasy going to fair.
Hideo Kojima said he didn't want to use compression, or as little as possible.
As I said earlier, that was to allow for shorter data loading and better sound quality. Imagine how much could have fit on the Dual-Layer BD if everything was compressed.
Really, you need to do your own research. Also Halo runs at 640p and for PS3 GTA4 runs at 640p native.Further proving that even if a game doesn't run at the highest existing resolution, graphics can still be impressive and run smoothly.

So, sure Xbox 360 is going to use 4 disk (35.6 gb) because it can do without the rest of the data that is included in the 50gb. Sure Xbox 360 can do it with 5 disk (44.5 gb) because it can do without the rest of the data that is included in the 50gb.

And if not, then by logic, why I am wrong in making a guess that its going to be 6 or more disk unless you want to tell me how SE is going to fit in the extra data into a disk that has the maximum capacity of 8.9gb.First, there is nothing stating that the game will use all 50GB available on the Blu-Ray disc. Second, if data storage on the 360 is a problem, they can use a lower but up-scalable native resolution to make the game look as good as the PS3 version. I already mentioned that in my prior post, yet you clearly didn't understand.
I am the one with the bullshit or you since you can't count. Seriously, what’s wrong with making a logical guess that makes more sense since what you are coming out with? I'm full of sense, but for some reasons, you don't seem to get most of it.
A fellow member posted that he was going to respond to you, but decided not to since I already did it in a more eloquent fashion... Why it's different with you is beyond me, but I have my guesses... :lol:
Sure, SE haven’t said anything but neither have they confirmed anything. But as it stands, its going down hill with the data requirement that Xbox 360 is going to face.
You affirm that it's going downhill... Again, you presume stuff that are beyond your knowledge.

Where the hell are you coming with this information. If PS3 is not going to have FF13 compressed then the game file would be, as an example:

5gb (1h demo) x50 hours game play =250gb

So, where did you get the idea about not compressing the data for PS3. Everything gets compressed for PS3, or else we would have games the size of >100gb. Good for gaming but bad for company.
Oh my god... By your logic, datas of every character models, every textures, every sound and music themes, all the different polygonal models must be written every 5 GB?
Since I strongly believe that you won't understand that last sentence, I'll explain it to you as a list:

Data on BD (for example):
-Music Themes
-Textures
-Character models
-3D Map layout (the buildings, trees, landscape in raw form, without textures)
-whatever else

Each pieces of data are reusable and don't need to be written on the disc for all the different places they'll be used throughout the game. For example, a texture that is used on a castle wall can also be used somewhere else on a different object. You tried to attack me by saying I don't use logic, yet you calculate the amount of space required on the BD as if the entire game was nothing more than a 50 hour long movie... ;)

So yeah, the game wouldn't be nearly 100GB if nothing was compressed.

But I was just point it out, Xbox 360 is likely going to have 6 or more disk. So, its bad for them since I don't a game that is 6 or more disk. Okay, I've been holding up for some time now, but... please, could you somehow manage to phrase your stuff with decently constructed phrase with correct verse tenses. And if it's not too much asking, could you do it without omitting any words?
I do even wander if you played ff8 and ff9 fully and how many times as well to even call me a fanboy.
And the point of that sentence is?
You don't even know how much Microsoft paid ATI and if its greater than Sony paid to Nvidia for the GPU.
How much they paid is completely irrelevant. The outcome is still the same. Xenos is more powerful than the RSX. And it's giving the Xbox 360 an edge with almost every multi-platform releases.
God have mercy on me for arguing with someone like you. Seriously, they spent $ million on making Cell processor (that is not really a CPU but more of a CPU+GPU hybrid). If they did not use that much money then they can just use the same amount of money on a better graphic's card by doing what Microsoft did.
Yeah, imagine if the RSX was more powerful than the Xenos...

How thick can you get if you can't understand the difference. Also, RSX is not that bad and neither can it not do what 80% (my guess) what Xenon can do.
I never once said it was a bad graphics card.

Sure it makes so much sense to pay like this:

Spent millions on making a high-end CPU that is more like a GPU and then give a lot of money to Nvidia for their high-end, one generation behind graphic card. Sure, you make a lot of sense but I do wander if that thick head in Sony who did that got saked yet since you would have if you were in their shoe right now.

The RSX was in advance of its time when first unveiled, but not as advanced as the Xenos. Sony isn't dumb or anything for having gone the route they chose. NVidia just didn't deliver as well as ATI, as I said before. And if they did, then we have yet to see anything that shows it (other than Killzone 2...maybe). Is it that much hard to accept that every components under the PS3's hood aren't the most advanced technology ever conceived?

------------Fanboy, fanboy ------------but the only fanboy I see here seems--------- it is you:lol:--------what a joke you are.I wonder where I said anything fanboyish... I seriously doubt you can point it out.

[ExodusVII]

Seriously what is that post Bliz!? I'm not going to waste my time dissecting it, seeing as it already tore itself apart. You didn't so much respond to counter arguments as reiterate your initial ones.

Let’s try again


Compression.

"In computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science) and information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory), data compression or source coding is the process of encoding information using fewer bits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit) (or other information-bearing units) than an un-encoded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code) representation would use through use of specific encoding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encoding) schemes."

Ergo, a 50GB disc of uncompressed PS3 code can be readily converted into a X360 code of far shorter length. Upon compression it will fit on fewer discs then it would have originally and I think you can see where this is going. Both versions of the game are --> NOT <-- going to be identical. SE are a large, well renowned, company this compression is not going to be in any way beyond what they are capable of.

There is no doubt that FFXIII is going to be on multiple discs for the 360. 6 is a gross exaggeration. 5 is a stretch.

I may respond to everything you said later, but I’m tired and need to do physics.

Also may I suggest chilling the fuck out?

[DreamEater]

Hee hee. What a meaningless fanboy war.

[ExodusVII]

Welcome to the internet! O wait, I'm part of this thread...

Seriously though, I hope you're not insinuating I've in some way come across as a... <gulp>... fanboy.

[Falsate]

We don't know what they are going to do. For all we know, they may just modify their engine.

[doomed_soul89]

360 version is obvious going to have reduced quality on cut scenes for space purposes, otherwise the game will be 6 or more disks (which won't matter to you, but it costs more to make the game which comes out of profits unless they charge you for it)

They have already started to make some changes to make it easier to port later, was in a interview, no details were revealed though

The developers never intended/wanted to port it who knows what issue's could potentially arise from this (they are only going to cuz Microsoft bought square off)

I Imagine they use the blu ray (just size on disk) and cpu to augment the graphics instead of relying solely on the gpu(I'm guessing that's how KZ2 looked better then any 360 game), which will probably eliminate any advantage the 360 might of had unless they make some major changes to port it

Probably going to either run better on ps3 or melt the 360, either ways fine with me

[Hynad]

They have already started to make some changes to make it easier to port later, was in a interview, no details were revealed though




Every interviews I've read state the complete opposite.

[Nex]

I expect the 360 version will be on 4 or more discs. SE said when they first announced it mutliplatform that they didn't know how they were going to compress so many cinematics, that doesn't bode well.

I think the PS3 version will load faster, since it's built for the architecture, and the 360 might lag at points if the action ever gets to much for it. I don't know all the techs but I'm pretty certain the PS3 can run more at one moment than the 360 can.

I doubt the 360 version will have any alternate voice tracks. The PS3 will probably have the original Japanese voices, but that will take up way too much disc room for them to consider putting it in the 360 version.

Any other differences (in graphics or lighting) will be subtle, like any other game.

That's enough for me to want to get a PS3 just to play the better version, but I think for most people it won't matter. My biggest concerns are if SE downgrade the PS3 version to make them identical, or delay the release of the game to make it similtaneous on both consoles (which is incredibly likely).

[Hynad]

Some people like to think that when they mentioned they wouldn't "tone-down" the PS3 version to make it look the same as the Xbox 360 version, the developers were lying, doing nothing more than PR talk.

I seriously doubt that. We can't be sure, but I seriously don't think that as producers/artists/visionary, they are going to give themselves limits, just for the sake of pleasing the most sensible fanboys.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft Game Studios were to lend them a hand for the porting process.

Also of note: I think that the multiple discs penalty cost that S-E would have to pay to Microsoft for FF XIII were either lowered or completely left to the oubliettes.

[BlizzarddeX]

Seriously what is that post Bliz!? I'm not going to waste my time dissecting it, seeing as it already tore itself apart. You didn't so much respond to counter arguments as reiterate your initial ones.

Let’s try again


Compression.

" In computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science) and information theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory), data compression or source coding is the process of encoding information using fewer bits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit) (or other information-bearing units) than an un-encoded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code) representation would use through use of specific encoding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encoding) schemes."

Ergo, a 50GB disc of uncompressed PS3 code can be readily converted into a X360 code of far shorter length. Upon compression it will fit on fewer discs then it would have originally and I think you can see where this is going. Both versions of the game are --> NOT <-- going to be identical. SE are a large, well renowned, company this compression is not going to be in any way beyond what they are capable of.

There is no doubt that FFXIII is going to be on multiple discs for the 360. 6 is a gross exaggeration. 5 is a stretch.

I may respond to everything you said later, but I’m tired and need to do physics.

Also may I suggest chilling the fuck out?

Blue-ray should have and does infact have better compression technology at hand than DVD.

The thing is most game developers makes use of older compression technology MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), may be due to partly Sony, to compress data for a game.

But there are better and more powerful technology at hand for Blue-ray such as H.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC).

What Microsoft uses is VC-1. While I admit, its better than MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2) but there is no reason SE can't opt for better blue ray compression technology.

There is a reason why blue-ray is far better than DVD anydays. The only thing game company don't seem to use the better compression technology blue-ray has and Microsft only manages to hang in there with the VC-1.

VC-1 is a good compression tech but still if by any chance SE opts to use H.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) or even VC-1 for blue ray then I am not joking when there is going to be 6 or more disk.

For Xbox 360 owners lets hope SE sticks with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), a compression tech that DVD has, and uses it for blue-ray and they then can use VC-1 for Xbox 360.

But if SE and game developers opts for these high-definition compression technology for blue ray then Xbox 360 is doomed.

For example,

PS3 -GTA 4 takes 25gb of blue-ray single disk, while it is only 640p native.
Xbox 360 -GTA 4 takes only single dual layer DVD, while its 720p native

Now does that make sense or what? It does to me. Blue-ray used MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), while VC-1 was used for Xbox 360.

Game developers are not using the better compression technology for blue-ray but seeing as its an RPG, that is said to use much more data than any other game then by all means, a better compression technology has to be used.

Again, as said MGS4 used ingame engine for cutscene and 16 hour gameplay, and it had to use 50gb dual layer BD, then sorry, no way can ff13 can be done if its native 1080p with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2) to store in a dual layer 50gb.

To be honest, how many RPG are in 1080p native to begin with either on Xbox 360 or PS3.


Lets hope SE makes ff13 in 1080p native, and has a game play of 50 hours on average and uses H.264 coding. Then we will find out how many disk Xbobx 360 needs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) In that situation my guess is 6 or more disk is going to be needed.

Or else if its 720p, with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), then 4 disk is enough if Lost Odyssey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Odyssey) is anything to go by but I have my doubts about ff13 for now if its 1080p native.

[doomed_soul89]

Blue-ray should have and does infact have better compression technology at hand than DVD.

The thing is most game developers makes use of older compression technology MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), may be due to partly Sony, to compress data for a game.

But there are better and more powerful technology at hand for Blue-ray such as H.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC).

What Microsoft uses is VC-1. While I admit, its better than MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2) but there is no reason SE can't opt for better blue ray compression technology.

There is a reason why blue-ray is far better than DVD anydays. The only thing game company don't seem to use the better compression technology blue-ray has and Microsft only manages to hang in there with the VC-1.

VC-1 is a good compression tech but still if by any chance SE opts to use H.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) or even VC-1 for blue ray then I am not joking when there is going to be 6 or more disk.

For Xbox 360 owners lets hope SE sticks with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), a compression tech that DVD has, and uses it for blue-ray and they then can use VC-1 for Xbox 360.

But if SE and game developers opts for these high-definition compression technology for blue ray then Xbox 360 is doomed.

For example,

PS3 -GTA 4 takes 25gb of blue-ray single disk, while it is only 640p native.
Xbox 360 -GTA 4 takes only single dual layer DVD, while its 720p native

Now does that make sense or what? It does to me. Blue-ray used MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), while VC-1 was used for Xbox 360.

Game developers are not using the better compression technology for blue-ray but seeing as its an RPG, that is said to use much more data than any other game then by all means, a better compression technology has to be used.

Again, as said MGS4 used ingame engine for cutscene and 16 hour gameplay, and it had to use 50gb dual layer BD, then sorry, no way can ff13 can be done if its native 1080p with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2) to store in a dual layer 50gb.

To be honest, how many RPG are in 1080p native to begin with either on Xbox 360 or PS3.


Lets hope SE makes ff13 in 1080p native, and has a game play of 50 hours on average and uses H.264 coding. Then we will find out how many disk Xbobx 360 needs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) In that situation my guess is 6 or more disk is going to be needed.

Or else if its 720p, with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), then 4 disk is enough if Lost Odyssey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Odyssey) is anything to go by but I have my doubts about ff13 for now if its 1080p native.

oh so that's why those multiplat games run better on 360, the developers are using shotty compression and just relying on the size, SE is definitely using the blu ray compression for FFXIII, which means there going to have to lower the quality of movies to fit it on 4 disks (yes it's going to be 4 disks, any more would be too pricey for manufacturers)

[Jaggerjack]

College degree..... right :wtf:

FF XIII is not 5 GB, that was the full capacity of the BD they used, for it, it was released, the demo only was about 500 mb and something more or so, and the rest was the HD trailers.

Dont soy a shit if you dont know what you`re talking about fag :aldo:

[Astrozombie]

1080 has no storage difference during REAL-TIME gameplay/cinema. Are you retarded?

You seem pretty retarded. I mean everybody's proving you wrong but you're still argueing. It's sad, really.

[doomed_soul89]

1080 has no storage difference during REAL-TIME gameplay/cinema. Are you retarded?

You seem pretty retarded. I mean everybody's proving you wrong but you're still argueing. It's sad, really.

I don't know much about this tech stuff, but generally higher quality pictures/movies take more space... (I use limewire for stuff...) at any rate, the 360 version is gonna be 4 disks, it's just the way things are going to go, all this math and whatever is pointless, the demo wasn't compressed, but it's also only 1 map and a few clips, using game play won't work pointless, it's about the map, background, item, characters, programs (AI and such, usually doesn't take much), and of course the movie clips, movie clips are going to be the biggest followed by the maps, probably the programs after that if they have mini games so those are the main 3, it's probably going to be 20-50 gigs after compression, it's 3-4 disks they can't fit it on less then 3, and they won't make it more then 4

[Hynad]

Bliz, you seriously need to shut up. You're spouting nonsensical bullshit, and it's becoming a pain to correct all your flawed explanations and erroneous claims.
VC-1 is a good compression tech but still if by any chance SE opts to use H.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) or even VC-1 for blue ray then I am not joking when there is going to be 6 or more disk.
You talk as if both versions were going to be compressed using the same method.
You completely dismissed my last comment. Out of spite, most likely. In it, I explained that even if both versions don't run at the same overall resolution/quality (be it for in-game graphics, sound, or CGI cut-scenes), the difference will most likely be barely noticeable... I explained everything already. You ignoring my last post only let me think that you admit that you were wrong. At long last. :lol:
But if SE and game developers opts for these high-definition compression technology for blue ray then Xbox 360 is doomed.

For example,

PS3 -GTA 4 takes 25gb of blue-ray single disk, while it is only 640p native.
Xbox 360 -GTA 4 takes only single dual layer DVD, while its 720p native.

Now does that make sense or what? It does to me. Blue-ray used MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), while VC-1 was used for Xbox 360.
H.264 is a compression method for video data only (as in movie, or CGI cut-scenes, etc...). Since there are no movie/CGI cut-scenes/whatever data in GTAIV, I wonder where you're trying to go with all this shit. Not mentioning that even though GTA IV is on a single-layer BD, it doesn't mean it uses all 25GB available...
Again, as said MGS4 used ingame engine for cutscene and 16 hour gameplay, and it had to use 50gb dual layer BD, then sorry, no way can ff13 can be done if its native 1080p with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2) to store in a dual layer 50gb.Uncharted is arguably more visually impressive than MGS 4 and it doesn't take nearly as much space on the disc for the same amount of gameplay time... Orange with Orange...
Lets hope SE makes ff13 in 1080p native, and has a game play of 50 hours on average and uses H.264 coding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC)Then we will find out how many disk Xbobx 360 needs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) In that situation my guess is 6 or more disk is going to be needed.
Why do you stubbornly insist to say that both versions will use the same parameters?
Or else if its 720p, with MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), then 4 disk is enough if Lost Odyssey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Odyssey) is anything to go by but I have my doubts about ff13 for now if its 1080p native. All indications point toward the game running at a native 720p. Things could change from what was seen in the demo. But there is nothing anywhere stating that the game will run at a native 1080p resolution.

[Zezlar]

It only takes 1 thread for this shit to spread. Yay.

[Astrozombie]

I don't know much about this tech stuff, but generally higher quality pictures/movies take more space...

I can see that you don't know much about this tech stuff, because you obviously don't know what real time means. 1080p does not use more space than 720p during real-time events such as gameplay or ingame cutscenes. I can set all my computer games to run 1080p, but does that suddenly make it take up more space? No.

It only takes more space if it's an actual video file, and even if FF13 has more than an hour of prerendered cutscenes, that's still only around 5GB of move files. Also, no, maps are not that big. You named all those things out of order.

And yeah, stfu Bliz. You don't know what you're talking about. Read this post, because you obviously don't know the goddam difference between prerendered video and ingame video. Also, please, please spell Blu-ray right before you praise it and claim to know so much about how it works.

[doomed_soul89]

I can see that you don't know much about this tech stuff, because you obviously don't know what real time means. 1080p does not use more space than 720p during real-time events such as gameplay or ingame cutscenes. I can set all my computer games to run 1080p, but does that suddenly make it take up more space? No.

It only takes more space if it's an actual video file, and even if FF13 has more than an hour of prerendered cutscenes, that's still only around 5GB of move files.

And yeah, stfu Bliz. You don't know what you're talking about. Read this post, because you obviously don't know the goddam difference between prerendered video and ingame video. Also, please, please spell Blu-ray right before you praise it and claim to know so much about how it works.

Oh right it depends on the quality of the original image for the space then after that it's up to the cpu and gpu to augment it from there, that's why some games look better on 360, because it has a better gpu and developers don't bother making a higher quality image cuz the 360 just can't fit it on dvd

[Hynad]

Actually, it all depends on the resolution of each individual aspects of graphics. You can have sharper edges for character models, but they use very high resolution texture work on them that make them look more rounded, or really smooth models with average to low resolution textures. Or both rounded with hi-res textures, of course, if it's possible based on the needs of a given game.

High resolution textures will take more space on the disc. To illustrate this, take a picure at 100dpi and again at 250 Dpi. Both will look the same if you don't zoom in too much, but if you do zoom it, the 250 Dpi version will look crisper.

For example, that kind of texture resolution is required if you want your graphics to look sharp when you zoom in on the objects, like in a FPS where your character is closed to a wall and the only thing you see is concrete... Good textures will actually look like concrete, while a lower resolution texture will look kind of muddy, lacking that fine detail.

[doomed_soul89]

Actually, it all depends on the resolution of each individual aspects of graphics. You can have sharper edges for character models, but they use very high resolution texture work on them than make them look more rounded, or really smooth models with average to low resolution textures.

High resolution textures will take more space on the disc. To illustrate this, take a picure at 100dpi and again at 250 Dpi. Both will look the same if you don't zoom in too much, but if you to zoom it, the 250 Dpi version will look crisper.

That kind of texture resolution is required if you want your graphics to look sharp when you zoom in on the objects (like in a FPS, where you character is closed to a wall and the only thing you see is concrete... Good textures will actually look like concrete, while a lower resolution texture will look kind of muddy, lacking that fine detail.

what the hell did you think I meant by original image

[Astrozombie]

Original image isn't exactly a well known phrase for "texture."

[Hynad]

what the hell did you think I meant by original image

That was in reply to Astrozombie, nitwit.

[doomed_soul89]

Original image isn't exactly a well known phrase for "texture."

the origianl image has a texture you idiot

[Hynad]

Okay, doomed_soul89, this really needs to stop. You call Shuyu a bitch, Astrozombie an idiot, you call me a liar, and most everybody (myself included) stupid.


Now let me ask you a question: Are you suffering from La Tourette syndrome?



Also, what exactly do you mean by the original image, compared to the texture?
Because i swear you are not making any sense there.

[Astrozombie]

Are you sure you wanna call me an idiot when you obviously aren't sure about what you're saying? lol

And yes, I know that higher res textures obviously take more space, but my arguement was in 720p gameplay versus 1080p gameplay.

I'm pretty sure there's no games that use 1080p textures out there.

[doomed_soul89]

Are you sure you wanna call me an idiot when you obviously aren't sure about what you're saying? lol

And yes, I know that higher res textures obviously take more space, but my arguement was in 720p gameplay versus 1080p gameplay.

I'm pretty sure there's no games that use 1080p textures out there.

Well you didn't realize images had textures so it fit, and your your probably right about the texture but ps3 exclusives obviously have better textures then 360 or multi plats, so they are probably going to downgrade the images from the ps3 version to make space in the 360 version

[Hynad]

Oh, for christ's sake, the textures in the best PS3 games aren't different than those found in the best 360 games.

Take Killzone 2 as your latest example. There's no texture depth in there that I haven't seen in games like Gears of War.

It looks great and the textures are really nice, but nothing we haven't seen before.


Quit your mindless fanboyism. You are completely biased, and it's getting ridiculous (in fact, it has been ridiculous for a long time now, but it's just fun to see how retarded your next reply is going to be.).

[Astrozombie]

No, they don't obviously have better textures... 360 has the better GPU, it'd be able to handle the higher res textures better.

And what're you talking about I didn't realize images had textures? When did I say anything remotely similar to that? I said that game resolution didn't effect game size.

[doomed_soul89]

No, they don't obviously have better textures... 360 has the better GPU, it'd be able to handle the higher res textures better.

And what're you talking about I didn't realize images had textures? When did I say anything remotely similar to that? I said that game resolution didn't effect game size.

the gpu can handle it, but the dvd doesn't have the disk size as for the the other thing

Original image isn't exactly a well known phrase for "texture."

then I said Images have textures, get it yet it's right up there

[Astrozombie]

Slightly higher res textures aren't going to increase the size so much that it'l hinder the usage of a DVD.

[Hynad]

Insert any of the nonsensical, ignorant, fanboyish, misinformed shit he has littered the forums with here.



http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t136/Hynad/facepalm_implied.jpg

[doomed_soul89]

Slightly higher res textures aren't going to increase the size so much that it'l hinder the usage of a DVD.

who said slightly, and when you have a ton of big maps, dozens of characters models and monsters/equipment, well it starts to add up, and of course everything here is just guessing unless we can get some specs of some games

[doeman]

lol, i wish i could join this convo, but i'd feel like a moron with all this technological jargon

*starts breakdancing*

[Hynad]

Give it a try, it certainly didn't prevent Doomed_soul89 of doing the same.

[doeman]

Give it a try, it certainly didn't prevent Doomed_soul89 of doing the same.
srry, i know my place ;-D

[ExodusVII]

Unleash the physics!

Now let me start of by saying I'm well aware that blu ray is the better storage medium for data. More space is available and high def video can easily be handled etc etc

Now let me tell you why it's a poorer medium for both compression and for data reading. Visible light, as in the light we can see, is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The range of wavelengths that visible light occupies is 400nm - 700nm ranging from violet to red light respectively. Blu ray, uses blue light which is of shorter wavelength than the regular light used in DVDs. The shorter wavelength allows for more coded data per unit area and hence more space is available on each disc. But then comes the compromise.

There are 2 wave relevant equations:
Energy=plancks constant X frequency
Velocity = Frequency X wavelength

The speed of blue light, is slower than the speed of regular light due to the shorter wavelength. Velocity = Frequency X wavelength, and I'm sure you can all see that by decreasing wavelength, you decrease velocity. The change in velocity is not fully explained by the change in wavelength, indicating a change in frequency occurs too. Anyway the point here is that the data on a blu ray disc moves slower and reading data quickly can often be a struggle. It's one reason why on blu ray movies you can sometimes see picture blurring and screen smearing in fast action shots.

Given now that frequency is used in blue light, you can easily recognize that the energy is of a higher level. This initially may seem like an advantage but in actual fact it just delays the read process even more. It requires more data processing in order to manipulate it into the binary that displays as images and sound on the tv.

Effectively what I'm trying to summarise is that the DVD is a far more optimum medium for compression than blu ray, regardless of video input. The 360 can read data far more quickly and therefore upscale compressed images with much greater ease than the PS3. This is why all PS3 exclusives have completely uncompressed data. It suits the medium. The 360 cannot do uncompressed as well and the PS3 cannot do compressed as well. It's all a compromise.

And before I get the fan boy speech, which is inevitable. Blu ray is better. Just not for compression or read speed. So don't even try debating it is. Unless you also want to argue gravity, electricity or some other fundamental physics principle somehow works differently in a PS3.

[BlizzarddeX]

1080 has no storage difference during REAL-TIME gameplay/cinema. Are you retarded?

You seem pretty retarded. I mean everybody's proving you wrong but you're still argueing. It's sad, really.

What the hell are you on about. 1080p native doesn't take much more data. Hell how can you be more wrong.

1080p > 720p when you count all the texture data. There is a difference of 3 megapixel between 720p native and 1080p.

How can you even say, 1080p has no storage difference unless you are trying to say upscaled.

Bliz, you seriously need to shut up. You're spouting nonsensical bullshit, and it's becoming a pain to correct all your flawed explanations and erroneous claims.

Right, keep your own advise and shut up since you can't differentiate between an opinion and actual fact.

Last time I checked what i said was to back my opinion, why I think its going to be 6 or more disk.

I was not saying it was a fact SE said its going to be 6 disk or so on. If you can''t differentiate between opinion and facts then shut the hell up since I have every right to say my opinion.

Its my own right and neither is my explanation has any flows since it works on assumptions. 1080p native, 1 hour of cut scene, 50 hours of game play on average. Your the one who is just plain nonsense over arguing over nothing but a opinion. When did it become a crime to say your opinion.




You talk as if both versions were going to be compressed using the same method.


I have every reason to believe...........your a thick head since you can't read. I said, what if higher compression technology was used. Seriously how much of a pain can you get since you can't tell the difference between a opinion and acutal fact.

I am no SE and its not in my right to say its going to be 6 disk or so on or if they are going to use the same compression technology.

I was just saying what if they do and how bad that would be for Xbox 360.






You completely dismissed my last comment. Out of spite, most likely. In it, I explained that even if both versions don't run at the same overall resolution/quality (be it for in-game graphics, sound, or CGI cut-scenes), the difference will most likely be barely noticeable... I explained everything already. You ignoring my last post only let me think that you admit that you were wrong. At long last. :lol:


I ingnored it since you are a quite a thick head. I was talking about picture. I started the argument, or the point first. I was talking about storage problem if its 1080p native.

You then bring in nonsense about up-scaling and while I understand your point and maybe SE will indeed go for 720p and then upscale, it still does not link with my argument of storage.

If its 1080p native for CGI, then Xbox 360 is in a lot of pain. Again, you dismiss the fact, 1080p native will take more storage and for gots sake 2 hours of 1080p native video don't take 8gb. Your are such a moron if you can't tell the difference and check the new FF7 advent children in blu-ray.

It takes a reported 30gb and its only in 720p. While I understand, it a longer movie but half that storage and you will understand 1080p native will take more storage in the game if its 1 hour CGI. There is a 3megapixel difference between 720p and 1080p.




H.264 is a compression method for video data only (as in movie, or CGI cut-scenes, etc...). Since there are no movie/CGI cut-scenes/whatever data in GTAIV, I wonder where you're trying to go with all this shit. Not mentioning that even though GTA IV is on a single-layer BD, it doesn't mean it uses all 25GB available...


What a moron you are since when did I say GTA4 used H.264. Again where I you getting all your misleading thoughts from since I said nothing like that.

I said MPEG-2 was used but where do you get H.264. And you forget, the game was done in 640p and not even native HD 720p. I wander why?




Uncharted is arguably more visually impressive than MGS 4 and it doesn't take nearly as much space on the disc for the same amount of gameplay time... Orange with Orange...


Right, so can you then explain to me why MGS 4 takes a dual layer blu-ray and not a single layer.




Why do you stubbornly insist to say that both versions will use the same parameters?


When did I and "insist"? Bloody hell you can read or what. Who said same parameters if I was just making a assumption only that they might be using better compression for PS3 now.

Also, 1080p native for PS3 and 720p native for Xbox 360. Where do you get the idea "insist" and whats wrong with me making assumption.

I was only saying, if same/or similar compression technology was used for PS3 as is used for Xbox 360, then Xbox 360 would be doomed by running to storage probelm.




All indications point toward the game running at a native 720p. Things could change from what was seen in the demo. But there is nothing anywhere stating that the game will run at a native 1080p resolution.

Right, thats your assumption. Not mine. I make assumption its going to be 1080p native for PS3 and I like it that way since I brought my PS3 just for playing Final Fantasy 13.

But if ff13 is 720p for both version, then again four disk is enough for Xbox 360.

Seriously, read, because I used only assumptions. If you find my opinions to be wrong, then tough luck but I have my reasons as you have for yours but check other forums and last time I checked, everyone is saying its not looking good.

I am not going to get a Xbox 360 version since I don't have a Xbox 360. There is no reason for me to trash it since what happens with the Xbobx 360 will not effect me if SE words hold true and they only port after finishing PS3 version how they originally intended.

Now, hell over your stupid argument when your argueing over my assumptions. For all I care SE is going to struggle to Port ff13 and again thats my opinion. Lets hope you don't get the idea, I am "insisting" or "its a fact" since its only my opinion.

[ExodusVII]

Read my post Bliz. The one before this. It's about compression, and why you're wrong. Unless of course your saying you have the opinion that physics works differently for the ps3 and therefore no one can debate your "opinion" /sigh.

Seriously stop using any compression arguments because the 360 can handle compression extremely well. Hell even the Wii can. Blu ray has the slowest read speed of any current technology and its ability to process and upscale information makes it unsuitable for compression. Yes, blu rays the better format, but it's not a flawless medium.

[Hynad]

@Bliz: First, here's a reminder:


For example,

PS3 -GTA 4 takes 25gb of blue-ray single disk, while it is only 640p native.
Xbox 360 -GTA 4 takes only single dual layer DVD, while its 720p native

Now does that make sense or what? It does to me. Blue-ray used MPEG-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2), while VC-1 was used for Xbox 360.

MPEG-2 and VC-1 are compression methods for video data only.

GTA doesn't have any video data, hence why I mentioned the video aspect of things not applying to it. Hence why your compression bullshit doesn't make sense when you talk about that game.

As far as video compression is indeed concerned, a 2 hour long Blu-Ray movie encoded in MPEG-2 will indeed take about 25GB (one full layer) but that 25GB also includes the multiple audio tracks, which are in linear PCM at the minimum but are most often then not in lossless quality (DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD) and those audio tracks take a lot of space on the disc. Not mentioning the Bonus Features that also take a lot of space... So, truthfully, a two hour movie doesn't take nearly 12GB+ on a Blu-Ray disc.

The amount of space required for the same data is halved if it's encoded using MPEG-4 AVC or VC-1. Which reduce the size for the same data to something around 12GB. Now remove the multiple audio tracks that a movie has and a games wouldn't use (I'm talking about the multiple languages and commentary audio tracks) and you are indeed left with something in the 8-10 GB range.

That's clearly not the 20GB something you are mentioning. And that's if you indeed go for a 1080p resolution.

DVDs aren't the best storage medium when it comes to 1080p video data. The logical route for S-E to take would be the 720p one (or maybe even less, if possible). Which would again take twice less space on the disc, and could still manage a quality not too far from a native 1080p resolution through the use of up-scaling.



______________________-


@ExodusVII: I wonder where you are getting at with that light wavelenght stuff, but here is a link that illustrates things in a clearer fashion, and potentially proves you wrong:


http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

Also:

Blu-ray 1x: 36Mbps / 4.5MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

Blu-ray 2x: 72Mbp / 8MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

Blu-ray 3x: 108Mbps / 13.5MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

Blu-ray 4x: 144MBps / 18MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

[Wandering Hands]

I have every right to say my opinion.


A private forum is not the government. The government cannot deny your right to free speech. A private forum can. So no, you don't have the right to say your opinion. You have the privilege. :cookie:

[Hynad]

Shuyu, I love you.

[Whiplash]

A private forum is not the government. The government cannot deny your right to free speech. A private forum can. So no, you don't have the right to say your opinion. You have the privilege. :cookie:


Wow, you should be the lawyer.

[Kitmitsu]

Let's have a vote. Who in this thread is taking everything too seriously and should be banned?

[Hynad]

Bliz

He clearly showed sign that he can't stay composed when his ideas are challenged. This, and his english is incredibly hard to read...

[Whiplash]

doomed_soul?

Ah hell, just ban anyone who responds with two or more paragraphs to the following sentence:

"XBOX360>>>>>>GAYSTATION>>>>>YOU"

or this:

"PS3 IS TEH BEST EVAH N MICROFAGS R FAGS!!!1!"

[Hynad]

Yeah, Doomed_soul89 as well, for the same reasons.

[Wandering Hands]

GRAND REVELATION!

They are the same person.

[Hynad]

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Astrozombie]

How can you even say, 1080p has no storage difference unless you are trying to say upscaled.

It only takes more data in actual video files, you fucking moron. I'm talking about gameplay. You know, when you're actually playing the game, and it's in 1080p? There is no storage difference between that and 720p. I can play a game on my PC and have it run at both 720p and 1080p, will there be a difference in how much size it takes? No.

You're just fucking stupid. Stop argueing your extremely incorrect and uneducated point.

[ExodusVII]

A private forum is not the government. The government cannot deny your right to free speech. A private forum can. So no, you don't have the right to say your opinion. You have the privilege. :cookie:

Smartest post in this thread. /claps

I'm going to go ahead and bail out of this topic now. It's not so much a mature debate as a couple of people parrying every intelligent point thrown their way with the same illogical arguments. You guys know who you are, grow up and start actually communicating with people rather than yelling at them.

[DreamEater]

A private forum is not the government. The government cannot deny your right to free speech. A private forum can. So no, you don't have the right to say your opinion. You have the privilege. :cookie:

I challenge you. This is not a private forum. It is a public forum, because anyone with internet access can sign up an post here - for free...
As for free speech being a privilege, I will test that...

[doeman]

Read my post Bliz. The one before this. It's about compression, and why you're wrong. Unless of course your saying you have the opinion that physics works differently for the ps3 and therefore no one can debate your "opinion" /sigh.

Seriously stop using any compression arguments because the 360 can handle compression extremely well. Hell even the Wii can. Blu ray has the slowest read speed of any current technology and its ability to process and upscale information makes it unsuitable for compression. Yes, blu rays the better format, but it's not a flawless medium.
so basically, if there is a disc that can store as much as a blu-ray AND read at the same speed as a dvd.... then we have the ultimate winner of discs right?[/curiosity]

[ExodusVII]

so basically, if there is a disc that can store as much as a blu-ray AND read at the same speed as a dvd.... then we have the ultimate winner of discs right?[/curiosity]

Pretty much.

In a couple of years, I reckon the read speed of commercially available blu ray players will have increased to the point where its on par with good DVD players. Then blu ray will be the best medium by far. However, being an early blu ray player, the PS3 is always destined to have the slow read speeds it has today. Unless Sony re-manufactures the hardware (which given sonys track record, is pretty likely) the PS3 is always going to suffer from lagg in reading data.

The perfect medium will need to be a little bigger than blu ray is now though. The highest resolution at which the human eye can still detect a difference (our eyes do work digitally after all) is approximately 3 or 4 times the resolution of 1080p now. An hour of video in that resolution, would take upwards of 50GB to store. We need discs which can hold anything upwards of 200GB in order to effectively store super high definition. Cameras which can capture that resolution exist and in Japan they have hopes of broadcasting in this super high definition by 2015.

[doomed_soul89]

It only takes more data in actual video files, you fucking moron. I'm talking about gameplay. You know, when you're actually playing the game, and it's in 1080p? There is no storage difference between that and 720p. I can play a game on my PC and have it run at both 720p and 1080p, will there be a difference in how much size it takes? No.

You're just fucking stupid. Stop argueing your extremely incorrect and uneducated point.

that's because it's either upscaling it or downscaling it, with different versions we don't know that there using the same size file originally, they could reduce the image quality to save space then upscale it on the 360 and have the ps3 one have a better image quality without need for upscaling it (what I did some research)

[Hynad]

Putting a file bigger than its use requires but downscale it to make things run better???


:lol:LMAO!!!:lol:

Not quite. The disc reader isn't the one handling the scaling process. The GPU is.

So the GPU would have to go through an extra step for no reason.

Here's an illustration of that, which doesn't include every single step in the graphic processing process, but should give a good idea of how things work:

***data reading ---> GPU receives over-sized image ---> GPU downscales it to make things run smoothly ---> result sent to CPU
____________________________

***data reading ---> GPU receives intelligently conceived image ---> result sent to the CPU


See how there's an extra step? These kind of extra steps doesn't help a game to run as smoothly as possible.