AC is not a definite hit. I'm concerned about the plot more than anything. The plot (as we know it now) is about a Muslim Assassin in Jerusalem during the Middle Ages. I hope it turns out to be good in the end.

The fight system looks boring to me

November will be a great month. Both Assassins Creed and Mass Effect are being released. :)

Yes maybe, but there is no disk issue with this game. When there is the first cross-platform game that does not fit to DVD. Then you are allowed to say things like you just did. So far there is no cross-platform games that really needs Blu-ray. Stranglehold for example only adds some extras (movie).. which does not affect the game at all. It is just extra game related content. Not better game.

I personally don't really care if disc space does limit games on either 360 or PS3. Games already look good enough, what's really important is polished and innovative gameplay...if developers run into a wall with disc space, they'll just have to shrink their assets down to fit, or *gasp* use multiple discs. Given all the techniques developers have used over the years to optimize and cut corners technically, I think it's more than reasonable to expect them to navigate around the problem should it arise.

There's practically no way disc capacity can limit the gameplay of a game if the assets (visuals and audio) are reduced to low enough resolutions. With all the improvements from increased disc capacity over DVD so far, it's been 100% a contribution in visual quality and nothing else. I'm hardly convinced that being able to see every pore on a character's skin during cutscenes makes a lasting and important addition to gameplay.

If a game has to look slightly not as good to fit on disc, it's still going to look much better than a PS2 or Xbox game, and it's the gameplay that's important, not the visuals, so who cares?

the length of the experience. so many games being released are just plain too short to make them worth the high price of entry. like i said a little bit above ^^^ there seems to be this new trend where devs want to make shorter games and more of them. oblivion is the only game i felt was a recent release that was closer to my definition of a complete game experience because it had some length to it but even it could have been bigger and more diverse.. or a new game like it could now be bigger if they fit oblivion on a dvd imagine if they made a game with a land area 5 or 10 times as big as oblivion (even if they have to have load times inbetween) and 5 times the length and fit it on blu ray. i just hate how $$ keeps putting this wall up to what devs can strive for in terms of REAL SIZE of games.

Threads are so much be when fanboism is at bay - yet people make valid contributtion yet express their preference.

PC/PSWii60 Gamer

Steam/xfire/gamespy/PSN/XBL : darkequitus

Thanks! I don't know who docked my 5th bubble, but it was probably some angry 360 or PS3 fanboy. Given that I generally stay as neutral as possible with my comments here, I don't know how I could have made myself a target, but whatever. It's nice have one's words appreciated.

to jump right in =/

I don't recall a clear case for why games have to be more than 9gb in size. Sure several developers have talked about how much space on the Blu-Ray disc they are using, but there's been very little talk about whether that usage is clearly needed.

One example that comes to mind is a pretty high profile game that has levels that are 2gb in size. When you take into account that the game's engine might use 2 gb of a dual-layer Blu-Ray, that leaves 48 gb. That means that the most that developer is going to get onto the disc is 24 levels. That doesn't seem like a huge amount of content to me. Not to mention that downloadble content, if it takes 2 gb per level, is going to be an issue as far as download speed and time.

I don't know...I would like more justification other than "X developer" says it is necessary. I'm sure it is nice to have. But I'm still not so sure of the need.

I don't know how you can quantify it looking 5% better, good luck with that.

Just because they launched first doesn't mean they're going to always be ahead. I mean... look at the Dreamcast. That was a great system and it died off real quick. Btw I still play my DC :D

Yes, but if you're still playing your Dreamcast, that just goes to show that the financial success of a console means nothing to the consumer; if anything the "death" of the Dreamcast was good for gamers because then everyone could buy one cheaper.

In other words, even if the PS3 did somehow turn the tables and beat the 360 into submission, forcing the 360 to be discontinued early (an unlikely event) 360 players would still have fun playing their 360's, so who cares?

...just another reason why this "console war" nonsense is a waste of time.

Blue Dragon is 3 discs!?

and Shenmue... best DC game ever.

thats another good example of a game that was impressive.. although it was not as long as i would have liked.. it was fairly massive for its level of detail and depth and was only the beginning of the story that was supposed to go on to be epic as each one became longer and larger with tech advances. but it seems like the love of $ and sales really are driving this kind of gaming bliss into extinction.

when are the devs going to go above and beyond and just spend the time and money to make a huge game? hell i'd rather pay $100 or $120 for a game that is just literally massive in every reguard and very well done and well polished instead of buying 2 games that are way too short and rushed to market.

While I agree that at the moment most games that are currently out on the market for the PS3 probably could have been made to fit on a DVD9, what about titles that are going to come in 1, 2, or 3 years from now. I think Sony is trying to give developers a platform they can grow into. I don't think it's a stretch to say that games coming on the PS3 in even the next 6 months or so like Killzone 2 or MGS4 would be likely very hard to fit on a DVD9 even with as much compression as they could throw at them.

I know I've read from, I think, Brian Allgeier (and maybe Ted Price as well) at Insomniac that they couldn't get everything into the last couple Ratchet games because of size constraints with the disk.

All of this is to say that I think the inclusion of a Blu Ray drive on the PS3 will pay dividends in the end. Yes it's more expensive, yes it there could still be a PS3 if it didn't exist, but I still think it was a good move to include it.

Not to mention that being able to watch movies on it is awesome.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent comments. I'd give you another bubble if I could.

Hi Adam,

While I embrace the need of a larger capacity media, like you said in the next 6 months or so we'll see the first PS3 games on dual-layered 50GB discs; quite a contrast to the 9GB of the DVD as you can see.

However, is the jump from DVD9 to Blu-Ray justified? It's an entirely different debate than to the one whether or not we need something better than DVD. And this is often why you'll see many Microsoft supporters argue - not whether or not DVD is good enough long-term, but is Blu-Ray the specific answer?

I personally can't comprehend why a developer would need 5 or 6 times the storage capacity when a fellow developer is, although struggling, managing to incorporate most of his games on just one DVD disc. It's simply an argument of figures if anything. For example, a mother would often buy her son a sweater that is slightly bigger than him so he may grow into it in the future (L). But then the father protests and says why not buy him a bigger sweater (XL) so he may have that into his adult life. Perhaps a format in-between, consequently cheaper for the overall price of Sony's machine, would have been best suited for this generation of consoles when you consider the main negative of the system being solely it's price.

P.S. The favour returned ;)

I get where you're coming from, but I would think that it would be better in the slightly longer term to ensure that a format can last more than just a few years. The need for data storage tends to grow exponentially - if you bought a computer say 5 years ago you probably got a 20-40gig HDD which by now is considered rather small.

The jump from DVD to BRD isn't all that different, percentage wise, from the jump from CD to DVD.

I think that with the advent of HD - everyone buying HDTVs, more HD channels, more digital cable and satellite broadcasting - there is a need for a larger standard media to distribute content. While I can understand people feeling that the PS3 is too expensive because it contains a disc drive that might not mean much to them, I for one am really happy that Sony chose to leverage what we might call an "emergent standard" as part of the platform.

I see a lot of Pros and the only real Con as price. But we've seen a dramatic drop in the cost of the infamous Blu Ray diodes which will likely continue - I remember when CD players couldn't be had for under $1000 and within 2 years you could get a good one for $100. I think we'll see the same thing with BRD and that will be reflected in the price of the PS3.

One of the big reasons Sony has done so well in the gaming console business over the last decade is their ability to reduce hardware costs - meaning they can cut price and be profitable all at the same time. No one has ever done this as well as they have and that trend doesn't look to be changing with this generation.

Ultimately I think that if BRD succeeds as the new standard the decision to include it in the PS3 will likely be lauded as a bold, smart move - assuming the PS3 is also a success. And if BRD fails then it will be called a rash mistake - and if the PS3 fails that's what they'll blame it on. Only time will tell, but I think it would be foolish to count Sony out this early in the game.

I'm right there with you on being a demanding gamer. For me it comes down to having a finite amount of time and budget I can dedicate to gaming and I don't want to waste any of it on something that I'm not really going to enjoy.

If I had a lot more time and money to dedicate then I would probably play more games in general and certainly not all of them could be of the highest caliber. I certainly wouldn't mind this scenario, but alas...

agreed, i felt like they were overselling it at e3. the talk and reality didn't line up. i think when you're creating stuff like this you have the vision, you're really excited about it, you can see where it's going and you forget that other people can't and don't. we just see what they show us.

It's not pride.. it's called business sense....
Asked Sony how it went as far as console sells due to the fact that the PS3 was $600 and how much money they were and are losing for each console.

Was it smart for Sony to add blu-ray? Yes it was.. because they have a lot of interest on blu-ray success aside from consoles and games. Sony have a lot at stake with blu-ray considering their involvement in the movie industry...

Now what interest does Microsoft have on the movie industry with 0 involvement in it?

Sony had a huge intallbase and fanbase with the PS2 and the playstation brand.. Microsoft had none. Even at the high price of the PS3, lack of games and less than great available games and difficulty of making games for the console.. they are not doing terrible...

Now lets switch thing to microsoft side....

Let's pretend... Microsoft would to do this:

XBox 360 release at the sametime as the PS3 or after waiting for blu-ray or HD DVD to be finalized.

Xbox 360 cost $600 or more due to HD drive.

XBox 360 fanbase insignificant compared to Playstation...

all for what? To add an HD drive that would simply give developers more room to put games in a single disk?

Do you actually think that anyone would even considered buying an XBox 360 if it was launch at the sametime as the PS3, same price or more expensive... do you think developers would support the xbox 360 any more than they did for the original xbox?

For what? HD drive?

Is more space better for developers? Heck yeah.. no one denies that. Developers wouldnt want just 25GB... they would want PS3 and xbox 360 to come with a drive capable of reading disks that can hold 1TB of data even if they are not going to use it... They would love to have consoles that have 6 cores each one of them runing at 5 Ghrz... and with graphic cards with 2GB of memory. So, the question should not be, is more space better.

The xbox 360 installbase would be 10 times worst than the PS3 is today if Microsoft would have launch the xbox 360 under the PS3 conditions... The only reason why the PS3 is doing as good but not that great is do to loyal fanbase which is non-existent on the xbox.

The orginal xbox was way better than the PS2 it even had a built in hard drive and online service... did it matter? Nope... better hardware and features does not guarantee success... Microsoft learn that lesson... Only the convination of timing, price, features, and hardware gave the xbox 360 a chance...

Let's see what happens on the next xbox... now that the xbox have a larger fanbase.. microsoft is ahead of the Sony by close to 2 years... the xbox 360 without HD drive game microsoft the ability to play under their terms. Yes it hurt them with the original xbox... but it made all the business sense.. specially since developers seem to be doing fine with DVD9... worst case excenario...

Irony

A lot of love for racist 🤔

Because racists (gamers) are their main customer they have to take in consideration their feelings.