Warzone #25 - Blu-Ray Does Not Make Games Look Better

Torrence Davis of The Bitbag writes, "On this episode we discuss what Blu-Ray really is, a storage medium. We talk about how many feel that graphics are better because of Blu-Ray when in fact graphics are better because of the hardware, not the medium that the data is stored on. Also on this episode:

- Hiphopgamer argues back and forth with a listener who says, "Home is a virtual doll house"
- Weapon X has some details on the PS4 possibly being released in 2010
- Torrence strikes back at some readers who accuse him of being a fanboy because of his response to the Kikizo interview with Square-Enix
- Digi Guys pull the plug on Hiphopgamer
- Torrence asks for more spawns and lights out on the Helgan red eye in Killzone 2
- and much much more! "

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Dimitri3516d ago

Who said it does ???
Blu-Ray is just a format.

Because it has up to 100GB of space, you can put uncompressed files on it, and fit a lot of "Crysis" sh1t on to the disc, and the game will look better. But Blu-Ray format does not automatically make the game look better lol.

thor3516d ago

Again, even thinking that uncompressed files have better quality is a fallacy. There are plenty of lossless compression techniques that will not degrade the quality at all. Even a JPG at the higher quality settings is almost indistinguishable from the original with the human eye, especially if it's a texture in a game and not an image in its own right.

Furthermore, even if the extra space _did_ allow better graphics, then there is no reason you couldn't just use 4 DVDs and get the same graphics (albeit with the anoyance of swapping disks during a game).

On a plus note, the Helghast "glowing red eyes" thing has apparently been fixed in MP! Hurrah! Though one has to wonder, in the KZ2 universe, what moron decided to give the Helghast glowing red eyes in a battle situation? It's a real disadvantage!

mikeslemonade3516d ago

Blu-ray does make a game look better and it depends on whether the developer takes advantage of it. Umcompressed textures look better than compressed textures. The problem not may developers take advantage of the space.

Blakzhuk3516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

@Mikeslemonade - "Blu-ray does make a game look better and it depends on whether the developer takes advantage of it. Umcompressed textures look better than compressed textures. The problem not may developers take advantage of the space."

Nope. Has nothing to do with Blu-Ray. You can have uncompressed textures on a DVD9. I hear what Torrence is saying. If Sony went with DVD9 the PS3 would probably be $125 cheaper and more systems would have sold.

thor3516d ago

"Uncompressed textures look better than compressed textures"

Do you know how wrong that statement is? If I take a LOSSLESSLY compressed texture, it is, once decompressed by the hardware, bit-for-bit IDENTICAL with the uncompressed texture. Furthermore, textures are almost ALWAYS compressed when they are on the GPU ANYWAY so as to save memory for other things the GPU needs to render the scene.

Many textures which are compressed using the latest algorithms to a high quality are practically indistinguishable. It's certainly a lot less noticable than ANYTHING else to do with graphics e.g. particle effects, number of polys, actual texture resolution so that if you were to store all the textures for a game uncompressed it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the graphics.

JBaby3433516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

There are plenty of good compression techniques that produce excellent image quality. I thought the point of blu-ray meant putting uncompressed data because it always takes system resources to decompress the data on the fly. If they are already uncompressed on the disk that means more available system capacity to do other things. In theory of course. This SHOULD result in better performance for graphics, physics, and the like. But again that's just the theory but it makes sense since everything must be decompressed for use.

arika3516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

bluray doesn't make a game look better it's the game developer that is responsible for that. bigger space means you can do a lot more, but if the developers are lazy then it won't be anything special.( just like most EA games)

ultimolu3516d ago

No one has ever said Bluray makes games look better. Bluray, however gives the PS3 more space so developers can work around with it.

mikeslemonade3516d ago

You can't fit as much uncompressed textures on the DVD. And when you say multiple DVDs Microsoft doesn't allow that without charging money. The developer from Rage(John Carmack) says that they would be charged too much money in order to do that. The only reason why LO and BD got multiple discs is because they are 1st party and Microsoft payed for the entirety of those games. Rage is 3rd party they don't get the advantage.

It's only the end of the 2nd year of the PS3 and we will see the advantage of blu-ray in later years. Convenience is an advantage. If it looks 1% better i'd call it advantage. A minimal advantage but still an advantage.

sloth4urluv3516d ago

Yeah using uncompressed textures and audio save processing time, but loading them from optical storage is slow.

Its often quicker to load a compressed file to RAM, then uncompress it because the access time between the CPU and RAM is way faster than a optical drive.

Compressed textures in alot of cases are actually better. Most compressed textures are actually in .dds format which GPUs are actually designed to decode, which allows you to fit a higher resolution texture in the same amount of RAM as a lower resolution uncompressed texture.

SPECTRUX3516d ago

of course it doesnt make games look better. it just allows devs to fit more things on the disc for a better game

tetsuhana3516d ago

It has nothing to do with compression, It's about quality. A dvd's video quality can be about 8mbps at 2hours and 4.3GB. You can convert it to divx with the EXACT same bitrate and it will have a smaller size. But at the end of the day, the bitrate is determined by the media. If you wanted 16mbps video you could put it on a dvd but you'll get stuck with 45 minutes of video. A bigger media size means more/higher quality Content on the disc.

Aclay3516d ago

Blu-ray may not make for better graphics, but obviously a developer can do more with Blu-ray and the quality can be controlled on just one disc.

The Playstation 3 being the more powerful system in combination with Blu-ray is probably what leads to PS3 exclusives still progressing forward when it comes to graphics.

If ALL developers were utilizing the PS3 and Blu-ray like Guerrilla, Digi-Guys, Sony Santa Monica, Naughty Dog, Polyphony Digital, and other Sony 1st party developers I think that the majority of all 3rd party games would always look better on the PS3.

SuperM3516d ago

Guys, its not like you can only compress on a dvd. blu-ray and dvd are both just storage discs and both can have compressed data on them. its just that blu-ray can have more then 5 times the data, nomather how you twist it. Now while im sure you can compress stuff without it affecting the quality, there is still a limit to how much you can compress. And when you dont have more then about 7gb of storage then many devs certainly will have issues fitting all their content without compromising either the quality or the size of the game. But this is not something people will notice, because the games are made to fit the 360 hardware so its more of a speculation of what could have been.

Its kinda like this though. If you make a huge game then the graphics are going to take a hit if you are to fit it on 7gb. If you make much smaller scale game then the graphics will not be affected by the storage. So blu ray in itself doesnt give better graphics, but it allows bigger games with more content/scale etc to maintain a higher graphical level.

Danja3516d ago

No one said that Blu Ray would make a game look better...that up to the devs , Blu Ray gives the devs more freedom when making a game...without having to worry about disk space most times...

ape0073516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

you can fill those 50 gb with gaming heaven

of course,it's much better than filling 8 gb

man,fanboys are out of this world

of course,it doesn't automatically makes game look better


it have chance to fill it up with textures,so games will look better

fanboys,blu-ray is the future,weather you like it or not,it's fact,there's no way you can spin things up,nuff said

Elimin83516d ago

It does make it look better.. The fact that you can fill that much space with uncompressed data.....

gaffyh3516d ago

Blu-Ray doesn't make a game look better, that depends on the developer and the power of the console. Blu-Ray just has enough space available to put on HD textures, HD audio, High poly models and they don't need to be compressed.

Obviously if a game isn't exclusive for PS3 = no time = it can't be optimised for the Blu-Ray = installs (MGS4 also included in this, but I'd say that was done so that the game wasn't delayed).

DaTruth3516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

I can't even watch Matroska on my computer cause it uses too much system resources and I can't do a thing while decompressing rar files. Uncompressed textures can be streamed and frees up the processor and GPU for other tasks. That is what makes it have better graphics and more can happen on screen like we've noticed with PS3 games like R2, Lair and Heavenly sword. Most of the problem with PS3 multiplats is that they compress where there is no need on a system that's not designed for it and is actually designed to not have it.

Xi3516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

Are done from the RAM as texture streaming is not done off of the disc. If textures are uncompressed it would actually severly lag the scene, and you'd have a lot of white primatives everywhere.

the advantages of blue-ray are:
More video streaming (ie if a game uses some movies like in the darkness)

more audio, or better audio, as in gta4 and mgs4.

And larger games, however this last point is very subjective as most games are dependant on time and cost constraints and not size.

All other preformance related issues are only myths.

kindi_boy3516d ago

the only think blue ray does for me is make me watch blue ray movies PERIOD!

what a developer can do with 1 blue-ray disk they also can do it with 1-99999 DVDs no BODY cares -except you dear fanboys-.

P.S. by dear i mean something else.

barom3516d ago

John Carmack seem to think otherwise.

" id's post-apocalyptic open-world shooter Rage (PC, PS3, 360, Mac) will look worse on Xbox 360 due to the compression needed to fit the game's assets on two DVDs, programmer John Carmack revealed at tonight's QuakeCon keynote. "

People should get their facts straight before stating their speculations as one.

jtucker783516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

Blu ray is a storage medium BUT don't forget it has a 36 Mbit/s data transfer rate. DVD is only 10.5 Mbit/s
That means you can stream a lot more data off the disc and hence gives the opportunity of better graphics.

Obviously this doesn't make much difference for the two HD consoles because PS3 has a 2x read blu ray drive (72 Mbit/s) whereas 360 is 12x DVD (126.60 Mbit/s)
Then you have to factor in that blu ray is constant speed whereas DVD reads slower the further from the centre you get.
Blu ray reading at a constant speed is actually really useful for reading textures and you don't have to put all the common assets near the centre of the disc for the fastest speeds.

So to cut a long story short.
1x blu ray data transfer is better than 1x DVD data transfer and therefore would be capable of better graphics.
Blu ray > DVD.

BUT because the 360 has a 12x read then data close to the centre it reads much faster than the 2x read speed of the PS3. But don't forget because of constant read speeds blu ray is excellent for procedural textures which are much smaller than compressed textures and frees up bandwidth for other assets - see Killzone 2.

@barom the reason the graphics will be worse in the 360 version of rage are because ID are running out of space on the DVD, not because it can't handle them. If rage were a smaller game or if it shipped with more disks then I'm sure John Carmack could get the games looking the same.
But then you have Guerilla doing some really clever things ie. using the constant read speed of blu ray to send procedural textures to the cell on the fly which frees up bandwidth and allows devs to put more assets put into lighting and other effects. So in the end the PS3 has the better graphics.
But that isn't because of blu rays capacity, it's because of the constant read speed coupled to the power of the cell. It's a really clever work around for the slower transfer rate, when you think about it. The 360 has a higher bandwidth, but is using it up with textures, then you have the PS3 with a slightly lower bandwidth off the disc, but it can use it much more economically.

In conclusion:
Blu ray helps produce better graphics, but not for the reason that all of you are arguing. i.e. capacity.
It's because of the constant read speed which feeds the cell texture procedures at a constant rate, this frees up the bandwidth for other assets. i.e. lighting, AI. In the end, that is how blu ray allows for better graphics in the PS3.
It is a combination of blu ray and the way the cell handles the data.
Look how small the Killzone 2 beta is. That is proof of what I'm saying. It's a quarter of the size of the Bioshock demo.
Bioshock is bloated with textures. Killzone is full of tiny procedures. Bioshock needs an install to be able to stream the textures fast enough. Killzone 2 renders the textures on the fly. 360 isn't capable of doing this because it only has a variable speed DVD. HDD isn't standard - so can't use that, and it doesn't have blu ray either. And then it doesn't have the power of cell for rending textures on the fly.
Blu ray improves graphics, but not by itself. It's only one element of the overall solution. Blu ray helps the process of improving graphics.

cherrypie3516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

Mikeslemonade said:

"Blu-ray does make a game look better and it depends on whether the developer takes advantage of it."

And got +20 agrees, 5 disagrees.

Proof positive that N4G is a world-class collection of idiots.

jtucker78 said:

"Blu ray is a storage medium BUT don't forget it has a 36 Mbit/s data transfer rate. DVD is only 10.5 Mbit/s "

And yet we know that HD installs are because of BR lower through-put. Read this:


Which says;
"While DVD drives can read data at those differing speeds, Blu-ray reads at one speed...When a publisher asks you to install a game on PS3, it’s because they’re moving some of the disc data to an area of your console that has much faster read access: the hard drive"

Because bluray is meant for random-access data, it is a movie-format.

jtucker783516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

cherrypie - Now read the rest of my post. The constant read speed is actually a very good thing.

Yes, PS3 reads slower than 360, but because of the constant read speed coupled with the cell you can use the bandwidth much more efficiently leaving plenty left over for other assets.

You really like to take information out of context don't you?

JsonHenry3516d ago

What idiot thinks that the medium the game is printed on makes it looks better while playing?!

bushfan3515d ago

Blue-Ray let you make BIGGER games....evertything else ask for a GPU!

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3515d ago
MAR-TYR-DOM3516d ago

the ps3 does.

BTW blu ray improves the overall quality of the game, from uncompressed audio to more storage which = bigger games. Blu Ray = Better for gaming than DVD

kindi_boy3516d ago

and that's the sole reason why they installed a blu-ray drive in the PS3 because they want to PUSH the new format NOT because of gaming.

it improves the over all quality of MOVIES over DVD by ALOT hell without it people would never hear about DTS-HD or TrueHD sound and DVD can't do that because stopping a movie to replace a disk is not really popular but with gaming i stop whenever i feel like it so switching a dvd is not really a big deal.

are you still a blind fanboy?

Monkey5213516d ago

Stop being so angry. The only person that sounds like a fanboy is you. All you are doing is trying to start a flame war. If these things annoy you, don't read them.

kindi_boy3516d ago

now am a fan boy because am stating facts ?

and you are the all wise because you are trying to describe how i feel and left the facts in my post ?

so the issue here is me not the delusional disorder going around with sony boys trying to prove something out of air.

have a banana or something and leave logic to humans.

XXXCouture3516d ago

have anybody ever said blu-ray makes a game look better? ofcourse it doesnt it just allows more content. what idiot claimed blu-ray makes stuff look better?

socomnick3516d ago ShowReplies(7)
swiftshot933516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

Blu-ray has already been taken advantage of. Resistance was 16 GB. Uncharted demo alone couldn't fit on DVD. MGS4... this podcast is trying to bash blu-ray on ps3-its 2 years too late

its true they don't guarantee games looking better. But they will always have the potential to (better textures in Bioshock because of blu-ray). That potential has been realized with Killzone 2. The graphics are not possible without blu-ray. Guerilla said this themselves. there you have it...

Edit: @ thor

dont believe me, check out some of the reviews. And yes your right, its the space. Good thing Blu-ray=more space...

tordavis3516d ago

"The graphics are not possible without blu-ray. "

If the graphics are not possible without Blu-Ray, then how come I'm playing this gorgeous beta on my PS3 without a Blu-Ray disc? The beta for KZ2 is 442mb. I could fit it on a CD or a 1gb thumb drive. KZ2 doesn't need Blu-Ray for the high quality graphics. Blu-Ray is a convenience just like DVD was when it was first introduced. It's the PS3's hardware that makes KZ2 so awesome.

thor3516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

Better textures in Bioshock lol

But it's not the blu-ray that's making the graphics look better. The same graphics could be achieved on multiple DVDs, if the PS3 used DVDs for games. It'd just be a pain to swap disks every 2 hours in Killzone 2 :P

Edit @ Torrence:

Good point. If the KZ2 beta is so small, what do they really need all the extra space for in the full game? Though we do know that the full game will look better than the beta, especially the single player.

swiftshot933516d ago

true but your not playing KZ2. your playing KZ2 multiplayer beta. Therefor, not final graphics :P

tordavis3516d ago

I'm only playing one of the best looking FPS games to date and it's just the beta. Are you from Guerilla? Did they dumb down the graphics for the beta? Sure as hell doesn't look like it.

JBaby3433516d ago (Edited 3516d ago )

I could be wrong but I don't think the MP levels are as large as the single player levels. Guerilla said each level was around 2GB. That's huge and I'm not sure how many SP levels in addition to all the MP levels. I think the actual game will need BD if not highly compressed.

SuperM3516d ago

So i guess if KZ2 was a multiplayer only game, they it might actually fit on the 360... Seriously though the graphics in itself doesnt have anything to do with the amount of space. Its when you want the game to be large AND have good graphics.

Let me give you an example here. There are plenty of older games that fit on a cd that is much much bigger then games that can barely fit on a dvd9. Why? Well simply because the graphics, texture all that sh1t is worse/smaller in size. So my point is, at a certain point the amount of space will affect the graphics. The devs are probably right, KZ2 could not be done without blu-ray. Not because the graphics couldnt be done without blu-ray, but because you couldnt make the game as large and keep the same graphical level.

Homicide3516d ago

PS4 in 2010? LOL! Not going to happen.

percephone3516d ago

Killzone 2 from what i gathered will use 30-40G of space on the blue-ray.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3516d ago