The Final Fantasy XIII XB360 announcement discussion* (spawned)

[betan]

So we can say that for once PS3 version is held back by x360 version... Quite opposite than usually

I think the opposite. This may be the first multiplatform disked game where 360 won't hold back PS3. (Mind you for the rest, the 360 effect on PS3 games was not because of the "power" which is questionable, or ease of programming (yeah right) but harddrive and BD use.)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So we can say that for once PS3 version is held back by x360 version... Quite opposite than usually

No, because PS3 development was started and will run to completion without regard for the XB360 version. It's only now that the XB360 has been decided and will be implemented, and they'll have to convert the PS3 designed product into an XB360. It will in fact be one of the best true-port examples we'll probably have this gen, of a developer taking an engine and game written purely for one platform and then converting it to another.

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

I doubt the install process is going to help SE in their design. Many 360 owners have 20GB drives (some of no HDs) and many more may not want to install 4+ dics (if possible).

From my understanding on how the game installations work, its very much the same as the PS3 version in which its purpose is to reduce load/read times, and in the X360's case it makes it easier for users by not swapping discs after certain points in a game.

Which means for the Core owners or those with limited storage on their HDD's, they will have to resort to swapping discs like usual.

edit: Tap In got it

 

[DrJay24]

perhaps not but having 1 in the tray and 2 on the HDD and the 3/4 same thing is a possibility.

the ability to install will certainly not hurt and anyone that has played games on multiple discs over the past few years knows... it rarely is a big deal.

I wasn't responding to the practicality of it, I was talking to the "nullified" comment. I find it doubtful SE will ignore the issue because you can install games to the HD. They will be very careful to minimize the number of discs; for cost, swapping and PR reasons.

As to how big a deal, given the choice I will take one disc over more than one. Less discs to scratch or lose. I doubt it will sway many people unless they have both consoles and everything else is equal.

From my understanding on how the game installations work, its very much the same as the PS3 version in which its purpose is to reduce load/read times, and in the X360's case it makes it easier for users by not swapping discs after certain points in a game.

At this point we have no idea how it works with multi-disc games. You may still have to have the specific disc in that is needed. So in this case you will benefit from load times, but not swapping.

 

[woundingchaney]

I think the opposite. This may be the first multiplatform disked game where 360 won't hold back PS3. (Mind you for the rest, the 360 effect on PS3 games was not because of the "power" which is questionable, or ease of programming (yeah right) but harddrive and BD use.)

That is more than a bit sensationalized dont you think? Do you honestly believe that every multi-platform title released on the PS3 was "held back" by the 360? I cant help but believe that if a title was held back by anything it would most likely be associated with development time, tools, budget, etc.(which I dont believe can directly be associated with the 360).


There are multiple example of mp titles that use/require the HDD on the PS3 as well as have a larger disk capacity than their 360 equivalents.

 

[betan]

That is more than a bit sensationalized dont you think?

Yes I do, but not as much as you seem to think.

Do you honestly believe that every multi-platform title released on the PS3 was "held back" by the 360? I cant help but believe that if a title was held back by anything it would most likely be associated with development time, tools, budget, etc.(which I dont believe can directly be associated with the 360).

To be honest, I wasn't talking about the games that are gimped on both platforms because of resources.
But yes, I do think most PS3 multiplatform games are held back in one way or another compared to what would be if PS3 was lead or only platform.

There are multiple example of mp titles that use/require the HDD on the PS3 as well as have a larger disk capacity than their 360 equivalents.

While I'm grateful that those games have bothered to use HDD as opposed to the ones that don't at all (which probably aren't fewer), designing and optimizing a game around 360 DVD and after seeing that doesn't work for Blu-ray and dumping a large HDD install is indeed an example of being held back by 360 in my book.

Let me ask you this simple question to hint my reasoning:
Don't you think if 360 had standard HDD and HD optical drive, 360 lead multiplatform games wouldn't be a better experience on PS3?

And I don't believe asset generation to fill up a DVD is an issue this gen (going by big releases already), but there are even simpler cases like looking at loading screens of realtime, uninteractive, ugly and possibly sub 30fps cutscenes with uncustomizable characters.

Why do I have to see those long loading screens? Is it because it is cheaper to optimize for those cutscenes compared to prerendered stuff, is it because all those nitpickers who complains about barely visible compression artifacts as opposed to terrible rasterization aliasing? Or?

 

[woundingchaney]

To be honest, I wasn't talking about the games that are gimped on both platforms because of resources.
But yes, I do think most PS3 multiplatform games are held back in one way or another compared to what would be if PS3 was lead or only platform.

Could I not take a similar stance and say that if the 360 was the only platform then the games would be superior?? Why does the PS3 have to had a split memory pool, slow optical drive, weaker gpu, less refined tools, etc. Of course I cannot because I am taking too many liberties with my statement.

Do I think that if every game had more time to devote to a certain platform that they would be superior would be the better question.

While I'm grateful that those games have bothered to use HDD as opposed to the ones that don't at all (which probably aren't fewer), designing and optimizing a game around 360 DVD and after seeing that doesn't work for Blu-ray and dumping a large HDD install is indeed an example of being held back by 360 in my book.

And what of the PS3 only titles that rely on a HDD dump?? Are these as well held back by the 360?? Is it not possible that this issue is a concern for PS3 development outside of associating it solely with the 360??

Let me ask you this simple question to hint my reasoning:
Don't you think if 360 had standard HDD and HD optical drive, 360 lead multiplatform games wouldn't be a better experience on PS3?

I do not know though I wouldnt inherently answer yes or no. Do you believe they would be a better experience on the 360?? Im willing to bet that whatever difference would be non-existent or rather limited in a massive amount of instances. Im not one to say that a standard HDD or more disk space are not beneficial (as I surely believe they are), but at the same time I have a hard time believing that this would gimp or marginalize the experience on the PS3 in direct association.

And I don't believe asset generation to fill up a DVD is an issue this gen (going by big releases already), but there are even simpler cases like looking at loading screens of realtime, uninteractive, ugly and possibly sub 30fps cutscenes with uncustomizable characters.

Why do I have to see those long loading screens? Is it because it is cheaper to optimize for those cutscenes compared to prerendered stuff, is it because all those nitpickers who complains about barely visible compression artifacts as opposed to terrible rasterization aliasing? Or?

Im sorry Im not overly sure what you are getting at with these statements. Could you clarify?

-You have to see loading screens in order to load data. Not all game engines or games can be streamed to meet the demands of the title. Long loading screens are present in various titles regardless of exclusivety.
Such things as framerate and artifacts share this reality.




I cant help but feel that you are taking many issues with not only PS3 development but game development in general and incorrectly associating them with the 360. Im sorry but I find the concept/statement over generalized and sensational.

 

[eastmen]

While I'm grateful that those games have bothered to use HDD as opposed to the ones that don't at all (which probably aren't fewer), designing and optimizing a game around 360 DVD and after seeing that doesn't work for Blu-ray and dumping a large HDD install is indeed an example of being held back by 360 in my book.

But now your talking about the limitations of the ps3 are we not. The ps3 has the slower optical medium thus requiring hardrive installs when devs make a multiplatform game.

Let me ask you this simple question to hint my reasoning:
Don't you think if 360 had standard HDD and HD optical drive, 360 lead multiplatform games wouldn't be a better experience on PS3?

Let me ask you this simple question. Don't you think if the ps3 had a faster optical drive like a 12x dvd drive that 360 lead multiplatform games wouldn't be a better experiance on the ps3.

And I don't believe asset generation to fill up a DVD is an issue this gen (going by big releases already), but there are even simpler cases like looking at loading screens of realtime, uninteractive, ugly and possibly sub 30fps cutscenes with uncustomizable characters.

Isn't it better than watching a scrreen on a first party game that says please wait installing metal gear solid 4 to the hardrive ?

You have trade offs with both systems . Do you think that 360 owners are happy that ps3 lead games end up using less textures in the scene due to memory limitations ?

last gen do you think xbox owners were happy that they go ports running in slightly better res or texture resloutions of ps2 games .

 

[Jesus2006]

I think that's a given, but then again PS3 games usually come with mutliple language audio tracks and uncompressed PCM sound. I am sure they can save quite a few bytes here without impacting gameplay.
Same with using different video codecs and / or resolution (1080p->720p) etc. It won't have any negative effects on the gameplay.

Basically FFXIII will probably ship with 4 DVDs, they will manage just fine.

MGS4 comes with just one audio track and just about everything is realtime with almost no recorded video and still already consumes ~30GB (and even installs parts on the HD).

Let me ask you this simple question. Don't you think if the ps3 had a faster optical drive like a 12x dvd drive that 360 lead multiplatform games wouldn't be a better experiance on the ps3. .

The PS3 2xBR is (avg) about as fast as the 360 drive (for dual-layer DVDs which should be 90% of all 360 games) plus it has the advantage of constant read speed over the whole disc. Imo the installation is done because they [developers] actually CAN do it without restrictions while drawing all opportunites from it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Scooby, as far as I remember, a lot of recent Final Fantasies offered you the ability to visit different areas you've been to already at leisure, to find secret items and monsters, replay certain 'mini' games, and so on. FFX-2 was even more extreme in that you had a lot of stuff you could do in different areas in whatever order you wanted. I'm not sure how FFXII is, as I didn't get too far into the game.

Sure, but there is nothing about that that requires disc swapping.

If the CG is the main culprit, then each disc contains a copy of the entire game world, as well as any CG/Audio pertaining to the specific story/quest elements on that disc.

See Blue Dragon, or Lost Odyssey for examples, both were multi-disc games that allowed unfettered access to the entire game world late in the game once the airships were unlocked.

And besides, no designer would build their game so that it constantly required you to be swapping discs, so I'm sure this is not an issue if SE has decided to port it to 360.

Regardless of that - 4 disc swapping in a 60 hour RPG doesn't have to be an issue, no, but it's still a matter of perception.

If anything, having this particular game released on DVD will once and for all destroy the perception than BluRay is necessary for next-gen gaming. I can't possibly see this as a bad thing for 360.

The reality is that it completely validates their decision not to go with a bleeding edge disc format, proving that the benefits of BR are negligible and that DVD is still very much capable of delivering the largest of the AAA games of 2010, five years after launch.

 

[DrJay24]

Imo the installation is done because they [developers] actually CAN do it without restrictions while drawing all opportunites from it.

I think MGS4 did it to avoid 5-10 sec loads between levels, which can be frequent and you can go backwards to a previous sections. It would have been nice if they had a streaming engine.

 

[Jesus2006]

I think MGS4 did it to avoid 5-10 sec loads between levels, which can be frequent and you can go backwards to a previous sections. It would have been nice if they had a streaming engine.

Yes of course, because HD is simply always better. A developer would be stupid not to use it (regardless whether DVD or BR disc)

 

[dobwal]

I already pointed out that on multiple disc titles if you require a diffrent disc as you progress to that content , your basicly givng the game free to that users friend.

my example is ff13 . Its 5 discs say. I install it and finish disc 1. I let u install and now borrow disc 1. When i finish disc 2 and y ou finish disc 1 , you now borrow disc 2 and we let my friend Jim borrow disc 1. Now i'm on disc 4 and your on 3 and Jim is on disc 2 and kelly is on disc 1 .

however if you allways require disc 1 in the drive then the above can't happen. Disc 2-5 are just for install purposes or if the person wants to play off disc .

All you need is disc one during the game start up and once you load a save the game will prompt you to enter the proper disc and then you play off that disc. This is pretty standard stuff.

Requiring to constantly have to disc one in the drive would require most of us sitting through 4 downloads where the contents from disc 2 to 5 had to be put on the HDD. This would make for a very unpleasant experience for some. And an all download one time experience is not possible if FF13 cutscenes get any where near the 20gb mark as most 360 owners have < 20 Gb with even an empty hdd.

I hated the fact that MGS4 had download waits in between Acts. I rather have it the old way where you have a bunch of redundant data across disks and you simply have to change disc to see the next set of cutscenes.

I would go for a hybrid method where all the data that was traditionally redundant across discs could be downloaded one time and the additional discs consisting mostly cutscenes meaning more cutscenes per disc thus less disc changing or higher quality cutscenes which stimulated the disc changing experience that we have faced through gaming since the PS1.

Disc changing takes about 30 secs. I would find sitting through multiple downloads just to save gamers from getting off their a$$ for a few seconds a frustrating experience and a wonderful example as how lazy gamers have become.

 

[woundingchaney]

I think MGS4 did it to avoid 5-10 sec loads between levels, which can be frequent and you can go backwards to a previous sections. It would have been nice if they had a streaming engine.

But why would it not be a question of diminishing returns. If it wasnt a necessity I cant help but feel that a brief loading time between levels would be the superior option rather than multiple and very long periodic installs.

After all these installs were not optional, which is available with an assortment of PS3 titles.

 

[betan]

Could I not take a similar stance and say that if the 360 was the only platform then the games would be superior?? Why does the PS3 have to had a split memory pool, slow optical drive, weaker gpu, less refined tools, etc. Of course I cannot because I am taking too many liberties with my statement.

I could. I thought I mentioned that (the other direction), but apparently haven't.

Logically either PS3 is holding back 360 on graphically acclaimed but with almost identical versions, or all those GPU and toolset advantages of 360 are really overrated.
Memory is more scalable especially texture mem. The optical drive argument would be a reach though.

But how is this related? It looks like a 360 defense argument more than anything else, is it relevant?

Do I think that if every game had more time to devote to a certain platform that they would be superior would be the better question.

Does it matter? Contrary to what we have been lead to believe, PS3 gets the significant less time. (And let's blame Sony on this and done with it).

And what of the PS3 only titles that rely on a HDD dump?? Are these as well held back by the 360??

No, and you missed my point.

Is it not possible that this issue is a concern for PS3 development outside of associating it solely with the 360??

I have no problems with HDD installs. As I said the problem is, games that are designed around 360 DVD drive and installed on PS3 means underused and inefficient HDD space.
A game designed for HDD is totally fine within that argument.

I do not know though I wouldnt inherently answer yes or no. Do you believe they would be a better experience on the 360??

Sure they would.

Im willing to bet that whatever difference would be non-existent or rather limited in a massive amount of instances. Im not one to say that a standard HDD or more disk space are not beneficial (as I surely believe they are), but at the same time I have a hard time believing that this would gimp or marginalize the experience on the PS3 in direct association.

Unlike you, I play multiplatform games on PS3.
It's not like you can tell "wow, that surface could use a couple of more (available) pixel shaders", but it's pretty easy to notice some of the HDD related stupidness that have been mostly limited to multiplatform games.

Im sorry Im not overly sure what you are getting at with these statements. Could you clarify?

-You have to see loading screens in order to load data. Not all game engines or games can be streamed to meet the demands of the title. Long loading screens are present in various titles regardless of exclusivety.
Such things as framerate and artifacts share this reality.

I wouldn't see the loading screen of realtime cutscene if it wasn't realtime, how long does it take for you start a video on your console?.
Plus they can even do some of the streaming during that video playback, thus speeding up or skipping all together the next level's loading screen as well.
That shouldn't be rocket science.

I cant help but feel that you are taking many issues with not only PS3 development but game development in general and incorrectly associating them with the 360. Im sorry but I find the concept/statement over generalized and sensational.

Don't be sorry, that's fine with me.

But now your talking about the limitations of the ps3 are we not. The ps3 has the slower optical medium thus requiring hardrive installs when devs make a multiplatform game.

I'm not sure how to respond.
Yes if PS3 has slower optical drive compared to 360, then 360 designed games require installation because of either limitations of Blu-ray read/seek speed or developers opting not to optimize on Blu-ray (like padding or duplication).
So?

Let me ask you this simple question. Don't you think if the ps3 had a faster optical drive like a 12x dvd drive that 360 lead multiplatform games wouldn't be a better experiance on the ps3.

Not as much as 360 had HDD.

Isn't it better than watching a scrreen on a first party game that says please wait installing metal gear solid 4 to the hardrive ?

Obviously, hell no, it isn't.
Having a 5 min mandatory break after every couple of hours of play is much much better than having 30 seconds of mandatory break every couple of minutes, or every time you enter a building or city or whatever.

You have trade offs with both systems . Do you think that 360 owners are happy that ps3 lead games end up using less textures in the scene due to memory limitations ?

Most multiplatform games have better textures on 360, why would you be unhappy?

last gen do you think xbox owners were happy that they go ports running in slightly better res or texture resloutions of ps2 games .

Who cares? I didn't care when I had an Xbox but even if I had how is it related?

 

[liolio]

OK, this discussion start to be really messy...

Like caching on the 360 is trivial, and MS can change the space reserved for caching whenever they want.
There are not real "installations" on the 360.
There are installations on the pS3 mostly because caching is not as trivial as on 360 (or some developper are really lazy... don't hit me deers devs /// Sony still haven't reserved a fixed space on the HHD?)

INstallation is a bad idea to begin with.

About with system is better I thank that kind of conversation was prohibited at least for non devs people (usually devs comes with real arguments and more balanced POV)

On FFXIII the discussion start to look like a pure "flame war", who said installation will be needed?
The game is likely to be linear anyway and pretty long disks change won't be an issue.
"Super noise conscious persons "may want to go through the pain of copying 3/4 disks on their HHD, right they are welcome.
And one question, to those questioning this"install problem" how much content do they expected to be installed on the ps3 version?
If SE comes and says 10 GB? Sony will say fine go with it? (I've edit this sentence at lot as I realized it wasn't making sense.. )

I stop here but Mods should put an end at this mess (the thread is more than derailed right now...)

EDIT
OT
Just to add that I agree with Betan in some ways, install is not a good idea, but caching is nice.
And I don't know the state of the arcade/core pack (dones't sounds brilliant but no numbers...) But I wish MS will discontinue it.
/OT

 

[Carl B]

I stop here but Mods should put an end at this mess (the thread is more than derailed right now...)

I'm of a like mind; let the BD helping/crippling the 360/PS3 tangent of this discussion come to an end. Future posts beating this horse will trigger a post-pruning.

 

[PARANOiA]

I honestly don't see why people think HDD installation would be required. Multi-disc RPGs have been around for three generations now, and they all allowed you to go back to old areas. Why some people are trying to invent a problem now that there is the possibility to have single-disc RPGs again I'm not sure of.

Now, big FMVs are going to feel the pinch in multi-disc games. How they work with this will be interesting. My guess is it'll basically be like all other RPGs, where 99% of the actual game is on all discs, and the only individual content on multiple discs are just movies. Given a 2hr 720p movie can compress to ~2gb with minimal quality loss on a general codec, I'm pretty confident they'll be able to work around it. Square have been doing this for quite some time, after all.

 

[Xenus]

It's all from the perception that RPG's are becoming more free roaming. Thus not as linear and harder to fit into a linear sequence on multiple dvd's. Whether it's true of this game or not we'll likely never know as they will probably alter both versions if they are going to have trouble with it.

 

[obonicus]

Now, big FMVs are going to feel the pinch in multi-disc games. How they work with this will be interesting. My guess is it'll basically be like all other RPGs, where 99% of the actual game is on all discs, and the only individual content on multiple discs are just movies. Given a 2hr 720p movie can compress to ~2gb with minimal quality loss on a general codec, I'm pretty confident they'll be able to work around it. Square have been doing this for quite some time, after all.

I think that's pretty much what'll happen, the big question for me is how many discs will it be? If 99% of the game is on all the discs, how much space will there be for FMVs? FFXII fit on a single disc, though I believe it was dual layer.