Sheikah Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Oh and I'd rather change disks 5 times than wait 30 minutes for my game to install, using up 1/3 of my hard disk. MGS takes up 4.6GB, which is a fairly small amount of my 60GB really. And obviously, the install is to reduce the load time massively. You wouldn't want 2 minute loading times each time. Besides, the break wards off obsessive gaming. It even tells you if you've been playing for too long and suggests you have a break. These are all good things for people who are usually engrossed in games.
Dyson Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 It even tells you if you've been playing for too long and suggests you have a break. These are all good things for people who are usually engrossed in games. You can't seriously expect me to believe that load times are an advantage. All systems have this "warning" function, all games have this, right when you turn it on. The Wii has the warning screen before the menu. Hell, even the old PS1 had an epilepsy warning. Nice spin you try to put on it there, though - "Long load times between games are great!" Totally.
Daft Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 I like seeing Snake smoke. It's kind of like Kojima put it in to say that we're just going have to wait for it to install...even Snake. Also, like someone said about multiple disks, it helps to break up the game. Generally the load times are made shorter by the use of HDD. MGS4 being the exception but then that was the choice they went with. I would have been happy having an option to install all of it, but really the game is good enough for me to not give a rat's arse. With HDD being so f*cking cheap now, if space really bothers you (and it shouldn't because how many games do you play on the go? It's piss easy to delete the install files) you can just upgrade. I doubt my 320GB is going to ever be filled completely. Also less disks, means less packaging which is a massive plus as far as I am concerned. Plus there is less chance of me losing one of the disks and having an incomplete game. In the end, if the game is good enough, none of this crap matters.
Hero-of-Time Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 An interesting quote from 1UP The latest 1UP E3 wrap-up podcast (which runs for a more-than-lengthy 3 hours) has divulged some information on the possibility of a new PlayStation 3 exclusive from Square Enix. Towards the end of the podcast, Shane states that he has been speaking to representatives from Square Enix, who have told him that "Final Fantasy XIII on 360 announcement swung the ball towards Microsoft. At Square Enix's Japan event in 2 weeks, they will swing the ball back towards Sony". The reason Shane was questioning the event, was due to plans for large announcements regarding the Blu-ray release of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Square could possibly be announcing a remake of Final Fantasy VII for PS3, a Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children game for PS3, Final Fantasy Versus XIII on PS3, or another brand new title.
Daft Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 It won't be VII. And the PS3 already has Versus XIII. Fingers crossed for brand new PS3 Chrono game. (Also not going to happen.)
Shorty Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 MGS takes up 4.6GB, which is a fairly small amount of my 60GB really. And obviously, the install is to reduce the load time massively. You wouldn't want 2 minute loading times each time.I have about 20 xbox 360 games, you can't fit 20 4.6GB installs on your HDD.... and a lot of people have a 40GB model. The 80GB model will be pricey and that's not even mentioning the unfortunate minority of 20GB model owners. It's stupid, and I'm sure you're kidding yourself if you disagree.
Aimless Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 I don't have an issue with installs so long as they aren't used as a crutch. I find it hard to believe that MGS4 absolutely required the amount of installing and loading that it featured, as I'm sure if Kojima Pro. had really focused on eliminating load times they could have done so. Personally I'd take slightly lower textures over an uninterrupted playing experience any day — there are certain chase sequences in Guns of the Patriots that lose their momentum a bit due to loading screens. I don't believe Uncharted has an installation, it just caches data to the HDD when you first load your game. From there on in your looking at a few seconds loading time between scenes, and even those are hidden behind the cutscenes. Hell, the entirety of Warhawk is under a GB and that's a lovely looking game. The PS3 having a HDD as standard is a great feature, but rather than utilising it properly most developers are seemingly using it as an excuse not to optimise their games.
Pit-Jr Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 I have to say, i was suprised at the frequency of installs required by MGS4. Is the BD drive really that slow? Having said that I personally prefer having the game on 1 disc, and the installs were far shorter than most of the games cutscenes
Daft Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 I have about 20 xbox 360 games, you can't fit 20 4.6GB installs on your HDD.... and a lot of people have a 40GB model. The 80GB model will be pricey and that's not even mentioning the unfortunate minority of 20GB model owners. It's stupid, and I'm sure you're kidding yourself if you disagree. You have 20 games going at the same time? It is so easy to uninstall things and re-install if you want to play them. It doesn't even take that much time either. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Sheikah Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 You can't seriously expect me to believe that load times are an advantage. All systems have this "warning" function, all games have this, right when you turn it on. The Wii has the warning screen before the menu. Hell, even the old PS1 had an epilepsy warning. Nice spin you try to put on it there, though - "Long load times between games are great!" Totally. Fail of a comparison. Difference is, the MGS install sections actually STOP you from playing, causing you to go off, make a drink and whatnot. Even just resting from playing for some 15 minutes is good. Considering these parts are SEVERAL hours apart, there really is no room for you, or any other, to complain. It's the best damn looking game on our current consoles so far, and you're complaining about it having some install times. The comparison of the MGS load times to the PS1 and Wii isn't reasonable, since Wii and PS1 warning screens can simply be clicked away in an instant to begin playing once more. Actually being physically incapable of playing for 15 minutes is what some wanganumbs (the same kind who play solid sessions of World of Warcraft) actually need. I have about 20 xbox 360 games, you can't fit 20 4.6GB installs on your HDD.... and a lot of people have a 40GB model. The 80GB model will be pricey and that's not even mentioning the unfortunate minority of 20GB model owners. It's stupid, and I'm sure you're kidding yourself if you disagree. You don't need 4.6GB for every PS3 game. Have you seen MGS4? It's no surprise why it needs 4.6GB, really. Dynasty Warriors 6 - 358KB. I guess we could fit a few thousand of those. Uncharted (graphically stunning) - 2560KB, GTAIV - 3340KB. The only thing at hand that I can see is near MGS4 in size of install is Oblivion, but we can all understand that. It is truly massive. So really I'm not kidding myself. I guess the tipping point for your post was the assumption that all game installs were anywhere near 4.6GB in size (to throw one last spanner in the works, the PS3 hard drive is easily replaceable for a much larger one, without incurring much of a cost).
Shorty Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 You have 20 games going at the same time? It is so easy to uninstall things and re-install if you want to play them. It doesn't even take that much time either. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Sounds like the Wii Virtual Console now! But yes, my original point was only that swapping disks really isn't hard work, and I would prefer it over an installation before I play my game.
Sheikah Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Sounds like the Wii Virtual Console now! But yes, my original point was only that swapping disks really isn't hard work, and I would prefer it over an installation before I play my game. It's not a straightforward comparison. Installation to the hard drive, as many PC gamers know, reduces load time. So really you're getting a bit of convenience with the single disk as well as reduced load times (usually).
Daft Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Sounds like the Wii Virtual Console now! But yes, my original point was only that swapping disks really isn't hard work, and I would prefer it over an installation before I play my game. Except with PS3 games you're going to have to put the disk in anyway. Fair enough, like I said earlier, if the game is any good you aren't going to notice or care either way. People who bring either up as a concern are just being pedantic. However, I'd rather do neither, so I bought a massive HDD.
Chris the great Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 gotta say, install time on mgs 4 wasnt bad, 8 mins for the first then 2-4 mins for later bits. for how good the game looked and (when it wasnt lecturing you on duty and human nature) played. fair enough, install is a long process in some games, DMC 4 is the worst ive seen, its not like its doing it often. and to be honest, putting the game in the console, let it load with you do somthing, like tidy up the inevitable mess the room gets to, or say hi to family. still, its not a good thing, but nor is it a bad thing. kinda keeps you a little more grounded in reality.
Guest Jordan Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 The only reason we're using HDD installs is due to the pitifully slow Blu Ray drive thats in the PS3. Still, its not as if newer drives are any faster.
Domo Kun Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Final Fantasy has never had particuarly high production values, surely it'll work on the 360? And who cares if you have to change the disk? I wouldn't mind getting up every 10 hours... Will this shift PS3s in Japan? I'm guessing it won't shift either system particuarly in the rest of the world. I don't like Final Fantasy by the way. I won't buy this. I can't stand the characters or bad generic storytelling *gets ready to be beatern to death by an NE mob*
Daft Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Final Fantasy has never had particuarly high production values, surely it'll work on the 360? And who cares if you have to change the disk? I wouldn't mind getting up every 10 hours... Will this shift PS3s in Japan? I'm guessing it won't shift either system particuarly in the rest of the world. I don't like Final Fantasy by the way. I won't buy this. I can't stand the characters or bad generic storytelling *gets ready to be beatern to death by an NE mob* BURN THE WITCH!!! Seriously though, I think FF is a massive f*ck off snooze-fest. I'm only really interested in it because I want to test it and get my name in the credits. 18 months is a long time though, I might like it the more I see it. This'll shift in Japan and it'll hardly register as helping console sales in the rest of the world.
Sheikah Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Final Fantasy has never had particuarly high production values, surely it'll work on the 360? And who cares if you have to change the disk? I wouldn't mind getting up every 10 hours... Will this shift PS3s in Japan? I'm guessing it won't shift either system particuarly in the rest of the world. I don't like Final Fantasy by the way. I won't buy this. I can't stand the characters or bad generic storytelling *gets ready to be beatern to death by an NE mob* Quoted the parts which are pretty conclusively wrong. Final Fantasy titles are epic games with huge production values, FFVII being a game that often tops favourite game polls. I mentioned that last part just to give you an idea of what a console seller the series is - some people will buy any game with the Final Fantasy title.
Chris the great Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 final fantasy not having high production values? excuse me but wasnt X considered the pinacle of CGI, with millions spent on the cut scenes? as for not doing well outside japan, again, id be supprised if that was the case, VII, VIII IX X X-2(to an extent) and XII have all seen a considerable amount of sales in both the US and Europian markets. in outher words, wind your neck in son, your talking bollocks.
Choze Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 The only reason we're using HDD installs is due to the pitifully slow Blu Ray drive thats in the PS3. Still, its not as if newer drives are any faster. The drive is actually faster than 360's DVD drive. Infact Blu Ray drives reach top speed near instantly as well unlike dvd drives. This is why people were angry that games like DMC4 had a mandatory install. Multiplatform games shouldnt have mandatory installs if the 360 version didnt. It smacks of cheapness on the developers behalf. Games like MGS4 on the other hand take advantage of both the HDD and Blu Ray for gameplay as well as performance reasons. It wouldnt be the same game without it. f id be supprised if that was the case, VII, VIII IX X X-2(to an extent) and XII have all seen a considerable amount of sales in both the US and Europian markets. Final Fantasy sells mostly in Japan despite the strongest sales of any JRPG in the west. Sales wise though every FF game has sold less and less since VII on PS1. FFXII has similar overall sales to MGS3(FFVII sold alot more than double of FFXII)... Which must be worrying for Square. Hopefully they get it back on track but they havent given any reason for doubters to be positive.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Final Fantasy sells mostly in Japan despite the strongest sales of any JRPG in the west. Sales wise though every FF game has sold less and less since VII on PS1. FFXII has similar overall sales to MGS3(FFVII sold alot more than double of FFXII)... Which must be worrying for Square. Hopefully they get it back on track but they havent given any reason for doubters to be positive. That could be due to the PS exclusivity or VIII being quite dismal or IX not appealing to the VII futuristic, aloof main character-wanting masses. I'm sure X sold well though - it seems the first FF of a new console always sells the best. I think porting XIII to the 360 is the perfect decision and sales will be respectable if not near record-breaking. Square-Enix just aren't great at bringing their games to the public.
Hero-of-Time Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Leaked footage of FF XIII Versus from last years Jump Festa has been found. Enjoy! One of our forum members HBJ5, has found a leaked version of the Final Fantasy Versus XIII Trailer shown at Jump Festa 2007 which has never seen public eyes outside of Square-Enix's evil Closed Mega Theater. We're not sure where this video has been leaked from but we can only thank the Photobucket user a thousand times for uploading it for us. Thank god they have a good quality camera. From what we can tell, this isn't the complete trailer but is a good portion of it. The music is apparently from the final boss battle in Lost Oddyssey but I don't remember it. This trailer like all the rest is 100% CG. http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/2008/07/23/final-fantasy-versus-xiii-jump-festa-2007-trailer-leaked.html
Daft Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Leaked footage of FF XIII Versus from last years Jump Festa has been found. Enjoy! http://finalfantasy-xiii.net/2008/07/23/final-fantasy-versus-xiii-jump-festa-2007-trailer-leaked.html I'm seriously more excited about this than XIII. It has just always looked so much cooler...in terms of visual direction....imo.
CooInTheZoo Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 I remember saying "I'm on disc 4 of FF VII" kind of like an achievement. I miss disc changing. I'm now fighting with my inner fanboy about what language to use when correcting you *Struggles* VII only had three disks mate.
Recommended Posts