|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
showka
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:53 pm |
  |
|
| Shapermc wrote: |
| oneEIGHTkevin wrote: |
| I think the Blu-Ray drive speed thing is blown out of proportion. The fact that loading times haven't been bad at all on any games so far: RR7 and RR6 have no discernible difference in loading times and Resistance is supposed to stream loading similar to Gears of War but I haven't played it. |
Dude, like I said, in order to reduce load times due to a slow drive speed for larger games (like, I doubt RR7 is a larger game) they duplicate data all over the place so that the drive doesn't have to go as far. It's a work around and I never said that there is huge load times. If MGS4 is a huge game that does involve a lot of data duplication to save on load times then a 360 port with faster drive speeds would reduce data size. I mean, it makes sense, but I have no idea if this is the case or even possible. |
Shaper, the way I heard it this was a special case fix used for Oblivion. Now this is just a guess, but does Oblivion load while its doing other things, i.e. you walk into a new area and it loads as your walking around? Because if so the slower drive speed could've caused routines to not sync up properly and thus they HAD to make the game load the same speed on the PS3 somehow or deal with rsyncing everything else. In any case their solution, while probably clever, sounds like a huge pain in the ass and I can't imagine anyone making a game specifically for the PS3 and doing the same thing.
The bigger question than if MGS4 will be on the X-Box 360 is in which ways will it be worse? I mean MGS2 on the X-Box was almost universally denounced as inferior. If the game is designed to take advantage of the PS3's harddrive caching, there could be noticable increases in load time on the 360 version if Kojima Productions doesn't put a lot of time into fixing it. Which I doubt they would. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
showka
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:48 pm |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: |
| showka wrote: |
| I mean MGS2 on the X-Box was almost universally denounced as inferior. |
You know, I remember hearing this, but I don't remember what the hell was worse about it. Can someone pull up a list for me on these things? I'm just curious.
The question is a valid one about what would be "worse" although it doesn't have to do with hardware as much as architecture of the consoles. As stated with MGS2, the libraries which were created for the game were only designed to take specific advantage of the disadvantages of the PS2. It had nothing to do with hardware specs.
Also, you are probably right about that PS3 stuff showka. What I read made it seem like what was going on with oblivion was a common item, so I generalized it. |
I waited to get an X-Box assuming that MGS2X (as it was once called in rumor collumns) would be better due to the X-Box's hardware advantages. Then the reviews came out and places like JunkerHq said the graphics were worse and there were other errors I don't remember. I recall the opinion on the inferiority of the port being almost universal among Metal Gear Solid fan-sites, so I finally dropped the cash for a PS2. It was a good thing I did since MGS3 ended up being PS2 exclusive. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
