Why the massive storage requirements? Easy: HD visuals and audio, huge levels, and HD-level movies
at least he was honest, "Game cinemas also share some of the blame, as Resistance will offer game moves in high-def HD and PAL formats, audio for all supported languages, as well as "some of those Insomniac 'extras' that our fans have come to expect." I hope the loading time do not destroy the experience. This games is a most have for PS3 fans.
Blu-Ray also uses MPEG2 for its HD video. It's an old and inefficient codec (commpression & quality wise) compared to VC-1 which is used by HD-DVD.
This is the third time this news is added
Come on. We all know it's not because of HD ingame stuff. Because that doesn't add as much on the data to use to let it expand this way. As is with the audio, also not the problem. Huge levels? Seen Oblivion? That just used about 5 GB. THat's also not true THe only reason 22 GB is used, is 1. HD CGI footage used mixed to ingame material and passages in between levels. The shock with the actual ingame stuff will be massive then 2. Talk Sony to the mouth-marketing. BluRay is needed, really.... 3. Lame programming. Just lame programming. And guys don't defend 22 GB it's just undefendable
theMart it seems that you have never played Oblivion! Oblivion is big, yes thats true, but it has no details and has alot of repetitions. there are only over 5 kinds of caves, and the forest is always the same. they used alot of precedural stuff, there are not unique things, everything seems equal. on one place there are many flowers, and on the other place there are also the same many flowers. this does not take level data, it only takes a code instruction a la "place flowers xy there", "place flowers yx there". do you understand this ? Another reason are the textures, there are more then poor. Oblivion is a bad example !
Yes I played Oblivion, but did you also? Ofcourse games use some stuff again. Oblivion is not better then PC textures, because it was a port due to the fact it was so early in the 360 life cycle when brought out. 22 GB is just not needed for large levels that's my point. It just won't. Look at large games in the past, any large game. Did they take up to the max DL-DVD capacity? NO Needs it now? NO Textures? Seen the 96KB 3D game? It's all in programming, right compression, new techniques. For real. The 22 GB needed in Resistance is because of CGI footage between the actual gameplay. Like MGS has so many irritating movies after walking a few seconds. That's not the way I like my games Just wait till november and see Gears of War with great textures, large levels, good sound and good gameplay. Just using a DL-DVD and it'll fit just nice on it. 22 GB is lame programming and much CGI stuff! Period
while it is certainly possible to do it the other way (unique models everywhere) the thing is: Who makes all these individual flowers? creating art assets is an expensive thing. So game developers have to copy things in order to maintain a certain budget. and it will certainly be the case that they reuse many models in Resistance. But the difference is that they might not save it like Oblivion. So instead of saying "place flower XY there" they might say "place flower XY there, then save the whole flower instead of only the position" But even that is highly doubtable because it will increase your memory footprint unnecessarily and you will get longer loading times because it might have to load that same flower about 500x.
you have NOT playd OBLIVIAN by the looks of things . every thing u said is a lie . as for the post , it dosnt take a rocket scientist to figure that CGI eats up alot of disc space . enough said
Using high resolution textures takes up a lot of space too. Because companies have been bound by space constraints of DVD (most recently) developers have become used to reusing a lot of textures in different levels. More space can mean nothing bad. Have some vision for advancing technology. This isn't lame programming; it's taking advantage of something previously unavailable.
Oblivion saved a lot of space by procedurally generating many of the environments like the caves and all of the foiliage. Also, the textures weren't all very high quality, and the 90 different oblivion gates only had like 5 different maps in them. Thats how oblivion was able to keep its size down so much. And anyone who says that more space should have been put in for ai is an idiot. ai scripts don't take up alot of space. Seriously, imagine if an enemy had to go through 10 megabytes of ai script before making decisions. It would be terribly slow and unplayable. ai takes up alot less space. According to the article they spent 12 gigs on level data, probably due to having very high resolution texture and no need for procedural generation in forming the levels. Character models, Hd audio, and yes, movies take up the rest, especially considering how they put movies for ntsc and pal formats on the disc so that the european and north american releases would be exactly the same. But still, 20 gigs of level data is pretty awesome.
Still nothing new here that shows why Blu-ray is neccessary for videogames right now. I will say that I disagree with TheMart a little because I wouldn't go so far to say that the game has "lame" programming....I think that this is just an example of how Insomniac chose to design this game because of the amount of space BD has. So why not make it 22+ gigs?
3D Models and Textures are actually quite cheap. Average Vertex size is 64 Bytes. Character Meshes have about 5,000 polygons. If we store the data without indices we would then have to store 15,000 (3 vertices per polygon). That would result in about 937,5 kb per Character Mesh. With using non-indexed vertices we will have many vertices that occupying the very same space. Think about a simple cube. it has 6 sides consisting of 2 triangles. That would make 36 vertices. But if you look closer this cube only has 8 corners. Transforming 36 vertices is alot slower than transforming 8. The solution to that is indexed vertices. You maintain two lists. one that contains all the vertices (with doubles removed) and the other that contains indices into that list. so we say: "this triangle consists of vertex #12, vertex #78 and vertex #185". That is smaller and faster than not using it. From my experience the average number of faces sharing a vertex is 4. So we would cut our 15,000 vertices by 4 which results in only 3,750 vertices needed plus an index buffer with 5,000 entries. The vertices would result in 234.38kb and the index buffer would be 58.59kb. This would result in 292.97kb of data. From here you have two possibilities to go in regards of animation. vertex animation is just swapping out the vertices with the next animations vertices. So you would have to have one set of vertices per animation frame. You can of course interpolate these animations so a 15 frames per second animation is more than enough. This has of course several drawbacks. for one it takes much more space (in the example above it would take about 3.5MB for a 15 frames animation) and for the other forget about all the physic effects like ragdolls. the other possibility is bones animation. here you create artificial bones which in turn deform the model. think of bones as ... uhm bones. They pretty much act like the bones in your body. you rotate the joint in your shoulder and the upper arm moves. but not the upper arm moves but also the forearm, the hand and the fingers are rotating around that same joint. A model normally has 11-20 bones with each bone using about 64 bytes. each frame of animation has 12 bytes per bone. So with this we could store our 15 frame animation in 4.77kb. This has drawbacks too since we can only deform along the bones not every animation is possible this way. Solution is to use both animation systems where its appropiate
Textures are a little bigger than 3D Meshes. a 32Bit 1048x1048 texture as normally used for character models is an uncompressed 4MB exactly. But thats not where it ends. You also want MipMaps in order to increase speed and visual quality. MipMaps are additional textures that are ordered in a chain and getting smaller with each one. So with our 1024x1024 texture the chain would be 1024x1024 -> 512x512 -> 256x256 -> 128x128 -> 64x64 -> 32x32 -> 16x16 -> 8x8 -> 4x4 -> 2x2 -> 1x1. So you would actually need 5.32MB if you now wanna add Relief Mapping you will want another 32Bit 1024x1024 texture to store the normals and the height data. So another 5.32MB. That makes 10.64MB used for 2 textures. two Drawbacks here. First it occupies lots of precious video memory and second its slow to stream into video memory as well. current graphic cards are capable of using compressed textures using the S3TC (aka DXTn) compression algorithms. This algorithm compresses at a ratio of 4:1 so our 1024x1024 texture is compressed from 5.32MB to 1.33MB. Normal Maps could be compressed with S3TC but would produce visual errors. For Normal Maps there is a different algorithm called 3Dc that also produces a 4:1 compression but reduces visual artifacts. So we just reduced our texture needs from 10.64MB to only 2.66MB. But we still have to read 10.64MB from hard disk, right? Wrong. MS did create a file format that stores S3TC compressed data called DDS. Using DDS you can directly stream the texture from hard drive to video memory without needing to convert between any formats. Additionally it saves the MipMaps so you dont have to create them on the fly while loading. So you would have 2.66MB on hard drive and 2.66MB in video memory plus a bonus of beeing able to read the file fast into video memory. DDS is nothing that is MS exclusive. MS did provide programmers with the complete file layout and NVIDIA did write a library that reads DDS files into OpenGL. This is a little slower than reading into DirectX but it is still fast. Other than that it would be no problem to create a custom file format that does what DDS does for OpenGL.
We allready know what is going to be said to support the BR drive. If I was to develop a game for the PS3 I would say what ever it took to make shure my games sells. And that is what there are doing.
According to the article it's around 300 Megs a level at around 40 levels for single and muti-player. That's just 12GB (more or less) of actual game play. The other 10GB or so are HD movies (including PAL) and audio for all supported languages. In other words they are making one disk for ALL regions instead of localizing individually. That's why they are taking up so much space on one disk. This isn’t rocket science people, quit giving more credit to BR than it actually deserves. Besides I really doubt they are compressing much at all. How much and how long you think a game that requires over 20GB would cost a developer to produce? When games that are 3-5GB take years and millions.
"How much and how long you think a game that requires over 20GB would cost a developer to produce? When games that are 3-5GB take years and millions." Another valid point.
What is so special about Resistance?
This is complete bs. The only reason resistance takes up 22gigs is exactly for the reasons the mart said: 1. High definition CGI cut-scenes and LOTS of it. 2. Programming that isnt optimized aka "lame" programing. You know its funny that this game takes up 22gigs when the AI is a piece of sh!t. 22 gigs with ridiculous AI see this is what is meant by lame programming. hmm. Think about it sony fanboys. I personally think this game is going to be terrible due to slow load times, poor AI, and just plain boring gameplay although I will say the aliens tryin to bite you seemed cool. I think COD3 will be better than this gameplay wise seeing how they sport the same run and gun style and COD3 looks better graphic wise. Gears and COD3 are going to shatter this game in terms of sales.
1. High definition CGI cut-scenes and LOTS of it. i wouldnt agree here. You can compress High Definition cut-scenes by a huge degree. From what i've seen as compressed HD material using H.264 compressing 25 Minutes of video to about 230MB without artifacts. That is about comparable to last gen only with the difference that the videos had lower resolution. With the change to current gen videos got higher resolutions for the price of more computing power needed to decompress not for the price of more disc space used. 2. Programming that isnt optimized aka "lame" programing. If they didnt optimize their code then you would notice straight away. I'm pretty sure that they are optimizing the game right now heavily. And if they decide that they dont want to optimize for size its fine by me. Doing something you dont have to do is bad business practice. But i do think that the game could be done the very same way like this on a standard DVD9. The reason this is claimed as "not possible" might be a strategy to claim the importance of Blu-Ray
Guys , we all know they are not compressing. This is Sony propaganda , plain and simple. We are all gamers here. Think back to a huge RPG you played like Oblivion or FF with alot of cutscenes. Now imagine a FPS , a FPS, that they are essentially claiming is 4 to 5 times the size and scope. Even if you suppot the PS3 you have to admit it's wierd.
is whether, over the next 3-5 years, there will ever be a need for games to use more than 7.5 gigs? I'm gonna have to go with a resounding yes myself. And I'm not talking 3 hours of HD movie cutscenes either. Then again, I am a sucker for those special edition games that include the prequels from older generation systems and general backround storylines. Not that those types of things couldn't go on a seperate DVD...but I still believe firmly that in the next 3 years or so the games/gameplay will start to easily surpass the confines of a DVD.
And new compression techniques are always around to compensate. That's why BR and HD-DVD for gaming will be obsolete in the future and all games will be downloaded. If you think you'll be downloading 22GB of data anytime soon think again. Sony themselves said the PS4 won't have a game media drive. So compression is the only way to go.
Really? Why only did the last gen games in 5 year did grow from about 2 GB to max 3 to 4 GB then?
Who in their right mind would put a supercharged V10 in a Mazda Miata? First of all, all that power would go to waste (tires would just spin and spin), the trasmission would drop faster than Paris Hilton's second album, the car would handle like sh!t for the couple seconds it actually did run, etc. We are talking 2 completely different machines here. It might have not been such a big jump for the Xbox-----Xbox 360, but for Sony, it is a huge jump in technology. And as half-assed as my analogy sounds, I think it is very fitting for Sony and their trasition. You're right, how could Sony possibly need all that space on the PS2 (with its 480i max resolution, very limited surround sound support, and out of date processor/physics)? But the question is, whether the PS3 will need that space or not. A simple yes or no would suffice.
how many gigs did the previous generation consoles require? I'm not asking to be an ass, I just don't remember what was once stated before...I just remebmer that it was nowhere near a gig of space. Why do you think that the next generation consoles won't require that kind of jump? I know that cost is prohibiting many developers from making games any bigger, but there has to be middleware and other programs/software that will take a load off of the developing costs...well I hope so anyways. I would hate to sacrifice a game with good physics, great gameplay, indepth story, and engaging characters for something with half of all that and prettier graphics. "You're a space marine, aliens from a different planet are threatening earth, you must stop the onslaught before all of mankind is destroyed" I already did that as a kid with Space Invaders. Give me a game like MGS, even with its somewhat convulted story, at least it has a story. RFOM seems like it could fall into either one of those categories. Hopefully it falls into the later (supposedly there are a couple twists in the storyline).
HD video will take up lots of room the brothers in arms trailer that was in 720p on live took up over 800meg and i'd say that was 15mins max and ive hear'd that they are aiming for 1080p for this game, I'm not sure but the bia trailer could be running at 60fps and i know 1080p only runs at 24fps but fmv will still take up alot of room if it's a high bit rate and uses one of the new high res audio formats that blu-ray and hd-dvd are using. Anyway there could be many way's that the figures could be managed for instance if you have 10 identical characters on screen all using the same AI routines and textures models ect do you count them as one set of data or 10, then there's the ingame sound with all the different languages if it gets localized properly. this is just me stiring a little but seriously all of the game engine, most of the character models, AI, animation alot of the level textures sound effects, ect will be repeated on other levels so it's not just a simple calculation of 300meg x 40= 12gig PGR3 used alot of texture's and models for each city I think i heard that it was 1gig of texture data per city don't know if this was the figure of the compressed data but this was the reason they are not making extra city's for DLC.
12GB was just a ball park figure. But you're absolutely right; textures are reused which means there could be way less texture space taken.
"Price explains that many levels and sub-levels take up over 300 megs each, even after compression" I guess that arguement about "Insomniac hasn't compressed this game" is out the window then. Who cares how much room this game takes up though, the game looks awesome. Everything i see of it keeps looking better and better. Fully destructable environments man, i can't wait
The levels look custom-built all the way through. Intense action and physics too. They're definitely making the most out of their available storage space. The haters are just scared of what great companies like Insomniac are going to do with Blu-ray storage, and depressed that they'll only be able to experience the difference if they buy a PS3 (which they obviously loathe). It's funny to watch, but even Ted Price felt a bit discouraged by the current situation on forums sites like this one. Game developers pay attention to what we say, so it's not like they don't have any clue as to the kinds of comments coming from people like Mart, Thammer, kewlkat, and RealDeal. It's why he actually came back and said straight out "300 Mb per level, after compression, with 40 levels total". It's to counter the ignorant and derogatory statements of these sorts of people who really don't know what they're talking about.
I don't care what the publisher says this is all the HD movies and bad programming to help the PS3 BD look useful. If GOW can look better visually and have better textures AND have a special edition with extra videos all under 7.5 MB, why does Resistance need 22MB? It's just alot of hype, it's maybe been in development as long as GOW and if they used 22MB of level texture than it would take like 6 years to produce. People have to draw these textures, import them, design these levels etc. the amount of space they're talking is not a 3 year project, unless their just designing a whole lot of textures quickly and just making a whole bunch of massive levels reusing the same textures over and over. And if that's the case who wants to play a game where the levels are so repetitive that it's just lame, but from what I've seen the textures are nothing impressive
I'm glad that you keep making basicly the same irrevelant comments everytime you insist on making a case that Blu-ray is neccessary for games right now....or am I mis-understanding your post? Well if you are again saying that Blu-ray is neccessary I will ask the same question I have asked you before, which is: Why would the developer have to change his statement at all, if in fact this game can only be made on BD? Yes he did say its about 300MB at 40 levels total, but thats still only 12gigs, thats 10+ more gigs of what?.....even he admits there is HD video, including PAL, and audio for all supported langauges, also "extra content" for our fans.....come on, if this does not tell you that they are filling space with non-gameplay content what does? So you accuse everybody who questions why its 22 gigs as being ignorant, honestly I think you need to take the blinders off, seriously. BTW, that first 12 gigs, maybe compressed, but we all know that there are different levels/methods of compression, like what is used today compared to 2 yrs ago.....its just logical, think about it.
Are you talking about how GOW on DVD9, looks much better than RFOM 22gigs on BD?....so why is BD neccessary again?