Wolfenstein: The New Order
- Thread starter loekf
- Start date
DavidGraham
Veteran
True, Rage uses 8 threads when available to a moderate degree, the engine can utilize even logical threads. It can also utilize CUDA to do the trnascode on the GPU, reducing the CPU load.
47GB for a full install?
What's up with these ridiculously over inflated game sizes these days? How does a FPS - and I'd expect not a very large one at that - need such a humongous install?
What's up with these ridiculously over inflated game sizes these days? How does a FPS - and I'd expect not a very large one at that - need such a humongous install?
Out of all games on the market, you are blaming iD Tech 5 game for asking for much game data for their megatextures? 
I am personally very happy that multiplat devs are no longer restricted with 6.8GB disc size that X360 had. Many PS3 games were in 15-20GB range [ambitioous 1st party games were in 35-45GB range], and now everyone will be able to easily craft as large game as they like. Several 7.1 uncompressed streams, videos with high bitrate, large textures, impressive soundtracks....
Installs are quickened with PlayGo system [bot via disc or PSN download], PS4 HDDs can be upgraded, I have no bandwidth limits... Good times.
I am personally very happy that multiplat devs are no longer restricted with 6.8GB disc size that X360 had. Many PS3 games were in 15-20GB range [ambitioous 1st party games were in 35-45GB range], and now everyone will be able to easily craft as large game as they like. Several 7.1 uncompressed streams, videos with high bitrate, large textures, impressive soundtracks....
Installs are quickened with PlayGo system [bot via disc or PSN download], PS4 HDDs can be upgraded, I have no bandwidth limits... Good times.
Could this be an indication of things to come for PC's? The console CPUs are fairly weak but with 6 cores to play with will we see a possible detrimental limit on the PC with a majority only 4 thread capable? Or is this another case of "lazy devs" not optimizing for the PC.
Out of all games on the market, you are blaming iD Tech 5 game for asking for much game data for their megatextures?
I am personally very happy that multiplat devs are no longer restricted with 6.8GB disc size that X360 had. Many PS3 games were in 15-20GB range [ambitioous 1st party games were in 35-45GB range], and now everyone will be able to easily craft as large game as they like. Several 7.1 uncompressed streams, videos with high bitrate, large textures, impressive soundtracks....
Installs are quickened with PlayGo system [bot via disc or PSN download], PS4 HDDs can be upgraded, I have no bandwidth limits... Good times.
I think as digital download becomes a bigger part of the console and PC industry, there's going to be downward pressure from that end to push game sizes down (I assume already is). It's not disc size that'll be the limiting factor, it's the fact a 15 or 20GB download is easier to handle than a 50GB one. Of course, this "limit" will be "soft" rather than hard. In that you can do what you want within reason, you aren't hard capped at a certain number (except maybe 50GB where Blu Ray comes back into play), but there'll be general downward pressure, whuich I dont see as a bad thing as they'll make the right tradeoffs between game asset quality and download size..
I cant abide Wolfenstein being ~50 GB if that's the case, it's ugly as sin imo.
Carmack said that they created 1TB megatexture on their development server array, and then they downgraded that do ~15GB for retail use on PS3 [entire game was ~20GB].
But, even when we ignore iD Tech 5, other multiplatform games in this new generation used very large amount of data:
Call of Duty: Ghosts: 49GB
NBA 2K14: 41.8GB
Battlefield 4: 33.9GB
Titanfall: ~17GB on Xbone, 49.99 GB on PC [34GB of SOUND DATA!]
But, even when we ignore iD Tech 5, other multiplatform games in this new generation used very large amount of data:
Call of Duty: Ghosts: 49GB
NBA 2K14: 41.8GB
Battlefield 4: 33.9GB
Titanfall: ~17GB on Xbone, 49.99 GB on PC [34GB of SOUND DATA!]
Gradthrawn
Veteran
4 PC cores should be massively, massively more powerful in just about every case compared to 6 weak-ass jaguar cores in current consoles, and even 4 threads (2-core hyperthreaded intel mobile chips) should not be lacking much overall methinks as long as the clock speed is decent.
...Uh-oh!
Heh yeah 1.6 GHz Jaguar isn't exactly in the same class as Sandy Bridge or later. The recommended system specs are curious. We will see, but I don't expect anything exceptional after looking at the 1080p gameplay video. I still think the 8 thread recommendation stems from megatexture texture transcode, assuming it is using megatexture.
The problem is that if the megatexture resolution was comparable to those other titles, I'm sure it would have been a LOT more than 15Gb, way more than 50. It was compressed down to 15Gb and looked like ass. (Don't flame me, the game itself looks amazing in places, commenting only on the horrible texture resolution overall)
Megatexture doesn't HAVE to be uniquely textured everywhere. You can repeat textures as required/you wish. So megatextured BF4 for example could essentially weigh in at roughly the same as current BF4, or maybe less, depending on how efficient megatexture's compression scheme is versus whatever tech BF4 uses (perhaps straight DXTC stored in a zip archive or whatever, like many other games.)
Don't mix up Megatexture and virtual texturing. Megatexture is basically an implementation of the tech with completely unique texturing, whereas BF and Trials are non-unique.
Also, Rage would not have had higher texel density without compression either. That resulted in jpeg-like artifacting and a lack of dynamic speculars and such, but the content was not authored at something like 2x resolution. Better texel density would have required either a much larger source dataset (something like 200GB) or a much smaller game world.
Rage has a lot of large outdoor areas that are meant to be traversed with a vehicle, but since you can stop and get out at any time, they can't scale the density down in those areas. Those areas took up a lot of space, especially compared to their gameplay relevancy. Basically the game design was the limiting factor for the artwork, even for the sub-levels of the individual missions. I suppose a new game like Doom4 should be able to use a similar dataset size with a higher density, as long as they are willing to keep the spaces tighter.
Also, Rage would not have had higher texel density without compression either. That resulted in jpeg-like artifacting and a lack of dynamic speculars and such, but the content was not authored at something like 2x resolution. Better texel density would have required either a much larger source dataset (something like 200GB) or a much smaller game world.
Rage has a lot of large outdoor areas that are meant to be traversed with a vehicle, but since you can stop and get out at any time, they can't scale the density down in those areas. Those areas took up a lot of space, especially compared to their gameplay relevancy. Basically the game design was the limiting factor for the artwork, even for the sub-levels of the individual missions. I suppose a new game like Doom4 should be able to use a similar dataset size with a higher density, as long as they are willing to keep the spaces tighter.
A bit beyond the subject (I didn't know where to put this post) but...
Maybe they are deliberately stuffing the bluRay (by using uncompressed audio data for instance in Titanfall) in order to discourage pirating by the prospect of downloading ~50GB of data?
Bandwith is not not a problem. Both versions have similar size for download. The only difference is that PC version has a additional install procedure in which audio files are uncompressed [using DOS prompt unpacker
] which significantly expands its footprint on PC HDDs.
