Why does Resistance take over 20GB? Glad you asked...
by Nick Doerr 
{ Sep 11th 2006 at 11:30AM }
Ted Price from Insomniac has humored himself by reading the theories everyone has offered as to why the upcoming PS3 title Resistance: Fall of Man will take well over 20GB. Now, he's tired of that and wishes to tell us why. We'll just toss up the whole quote so no word can be twisted on our behalf.Ted Price explains: "Consider that even with compression, each of our 'levels' (or loaded areas) has more than 300 megs of unique data. And keep in mind that we're also streaming data during level playthroughs. It doesn't take too much level data before you've gone past what can be stored on a dual-layer DVD. And between single player and multiplayer we have a lot of level data (over 40 different large loaded areas) – yes, more than will fit on a dual layer DVD."
Also mentioned is the fact that all game movies are in more than one format, multiple full language tracks, and a fist full of extras. That clears that up, sort of. Kind of. Mostly. Should they have focused the storage space more for AI and less on extras, different movie formats, etc? If you could arrange the game's focus in terms of memory space and features, would you have done it any differently?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Cage @ Sep 11th 2006 12:39PM
Its kinda like askin P Diddy why a car needs spinners...
Jimbo @ Sep 11th 2006 1:08PM
You realize how little space that code (*cough*AI*cough*) actually takes up, right? Assets (art, models, textures, sound) is what is hogging that space, not the Chimera AI routines.
Andir2.0 @ Sep 11th 2006 1:19PM
"If you could arrange the game's focus in terms of memory space and features, would you have done it any differently?"
And why is the editor/poster of PS3 Fanboy trying to find a way to save space on the BluRay disc? You are starting to sound like a XBox360 Fan. We have the space, why not use it. That's the only answer you need.
SuicideNinja @ Sep 11th 2006 6:16PM
"Entitlements." Everyone could use more "Entitlements."
Um, they can do whatever they want with the space, whether necessary or not. Personally, I think extra features are a waste of time (after a quick run-through, how many times to you go back?).
As long as the extra space is going to the game, PS3-owners will be happy (as long as the game is good). Resistance is on my radar regardless.
Goobers @ Sep 11th 2006 6:13PM
something along the lines of what Jimbo said... AI programming doesn't take up GBs of space.
firstly, not every object needs AI scripting.
secondly, characters that do need scripts can share scripts for some actions.
thirdly, there are only so many actions a character can take. example: AI getting shot at... it can duck, roll, run, stand still (ppl do that when in shock), and on the opposite of standing still, call for back up... but does it need to make pot roast? okay, a bit extreme...
considering the sheer size of a Blu-ray disc... 20 GB of level/extra data doesn't mean they skimped on AI anyway.
rather if they SAID they devoted some small % of their EFFORT... that might be more inidicatve of the "quality" of the AI.
cerberus414 @ Sep 11th 2006 7:01PM
Please don't bash as I am not a PS3 fan boy (X360 for me) but I have a very interesting question to discuss. Obviously, when the developers are asked how big the game is, their typical response will be around 20-25GB. You wouldn't expect a PS3 developer to say "Oh, you got me, its 4.5 GB". Now think about it, and I mean be a little open minded for a minute. Do you really think a game can take up 25 GB w/ Compression (Compare that to the biggest PC games. Never seen one go over 10 GB and PCs are a bit better than PS3 or 360. At lest graphically wise). It would be against Sony's main belief to say the game is around 5 GB (not sure about the real size). It would prove BluRay worthless... I'm not saying the game won't be 25 GB, because you can always find some junk to fill the space up with, just trying to open your eyes a little and see just how creditable the information can be. Oh yea another question, if DVDs are becoming a problem right now, how come the largest games for a 360 barely brake the 50% barrier. Anyone mind answering that question for me? I think the real way to prove BluRay worthy is to compare the content of multi-platform games and see what the differences are (Graphics, Extra Content, etc). Remember that PS3 and Xbox 360 are two different architectures and numbers don't always mean a whole bunch.
Matt @ Sep 11th 2006 7:25PM
I'm sure their uber AI programmers could easily write functions to generate different versions of the games 99.9% "brown and grey" textures on the fly. Trivial really...The game only uses 10% of the color gamut.
As for comparing multiplatform 360 and PS3 games based on their content...this should be entertaining to hear the responses...let me guess PS3 has better compression or something HAHA.
P.S. Resistance did look like the only fun PS3 game from E3, imo, but it's going to be a major let down if it keeps getting so much media attention... Perhaps not unlike my adjusted predictions for Red Steel on Wii ,even if they claim they realified the sword fighting...then again, Red Steel will be innovative and ground breaking just because it exists.
ConcernedGAMER @ Sep 11th 2006 7:47PM
And the game still looks that bad grafically? wow that is amazing, I guess they needed 40 gig.
cerberus414 @ Sep 11th 2006 8:12PM
Take my word for it, its no where near 20 GB. I still stand by my statement (#6).
la @ Sep 12th 2006 7:46AM
ha ha, he said grafically. Anyway this is how I see it, its really simple the 360 can't do it so they are wasting space simple, what more do you need to hear. We have 50 gig discs they have 7.5 gig discs so it's really simple how in the world could we need that space. That is the weakest arguement I have ever heard in my life, if we didn't need the space games would still be coming on CDs, not DVDs. You can talk compression out your ass it still doesn't change a thing. Microsoft screwed over people with the cheap DVD drive simple, give it a few years, when the PS3 is pushing 3 or 4 years.
I mean it's a damn common sense thing if we didnt need the space pcs would still be coming with 500MB hard drives and floppys.
mxcl @ Sep 12th 2006 8:24AM
Prey was larger for the 360 than the PC because each level needed to stream the graphics data from sequential blocks, while on the PC access times are faster due to it all being on the hard-disk so this wasn't necessary. Which may factor into PS3 games being larger than known PC games. Also Prey had much reduced texture quality on the 360, perhaps because of storage limitation? Would be interesting to hear what Scott Miller comment on that.
PS I'm a 360 owner, and have no intention to buy a PS3 currently.
Could someone delete Ritchie Nolife's spam pls?
Concerned Gamer @ Sep 12th 2006 9:53AM
Ummm yes nice come back la, hitting on spelling errors. No response to how bad the game looks though? This is the best game of the launch titles? You are fine with that? lol
cerberus414 @ Sep 12th 2006 5:42PM
Wow, #10, you must be a moron. Hence I was talking about multi-platform games because you can only compare those, not exclusives (Always better than multi-platform). It's just something we'll never know. But anyways, back to my argument, yea you #10, you are a freaking moron. Your little sarcasm sucks too. Here, answer this question: Why would developers try harder than they need to? What, you think they care about you. THEY DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT YOU. They just have a contract. If a game is multi platform, they'll make it for 360 (Easier to develop for 360 first since it's a PC in essence) and port it to PS3. Graphics will be the same and most of the BluRAy space will be useless. As far as Resistance goes, no way it uses 20GB, kill me, BUT THERE IS NO WAY IT WILL USE 20-25 GB(That is, mandatory stuff for the game and not useless junk just to fill it up)
"Prey was larger for the 360 than the PC because each level needed to stream the graphics data from sequential blocks"
This brings me to my next point: In comment #6, I said "Remember that PS3 and Xbox 360 are two different architectures and numbers don't always mean a whole bunch." A game that could potentially take up 8 GB on Xbox 360 could be 20 GB for PS3 or vice versa. It's like two different video formats... both are same quality but the sizes are different. (DivX and WMV?)
Aragorn @ Sep 12th 2006 5:56PM
Concerned Gamer: I definitely agree with you that from what we've seen, the graphics for resistance has been lackluster... but then again, it's just not really possible to judge a game's graphical fidelity via screen shots and low res clips. These days, I've resigned myself to waiting to actually grab the controller to judge whether or not a game looks good or not. A great example of this would be God of War, which have absolutely pathetic looking screenshots… but once you’ve got it in motion, it’s pretty sharp (for a ps2 game).
Anyway, back to the subject… I’m gonna have to call Ted Price a liar. Not to say that having a 20 gig game isn’t beyond the realm of possibility, but seems unlikely. I do have to apply my limited technical knowledge here, but last I checked, the oblivion disk was filled to the brim, and most of that was audio. I think it’s safe to assume that resistance won’t have as much content as oblivion… and so I guess the question still is… well what the hell is taking up all that space?
But frankly, my skepticism is more about Sony’s historic lack of honesty than some technical know-how. Ted Price… of insomniac games… owned by SCE, speaking out at a time in which nothing but bad news has been meted out in regards to the PS3 launch, with sony’s future success riding on the new format, and needing a way to get investors back to the table, and movie distributors onboard?
Convenient.
Ultimately, I have yet to be convinced that we really are in a dvd storage crisis, and nobody seems to know for sure. Time will tell, obviously, but I sure as hell am not going to take Sony’s - of all companies (the one who has the most to gain from this, since they’ve pretty much cornered the dvd market in a fashion that would make M$oft blush) – word for it. Admittedly, I read through the blog entry pretty quickly, but the closest thing to an actual explanation in there seems to be the inclusion of HD movies in two formats, and all that does to me is make me wonder why the hell a game of this generation would require pre-rendered movies (honestly… the in game engine should provide all the graphical fidelity required). Plus if that’s the case, the whole “it takes 20 gb of space” claim is kinda a misleading fluke, and doesn’t really prove that we need that much space.
When it comes down to brass tacks, I’m on the fence as to the PS3’s merits, but what I am solidly convinced of is that Ted Price is talking out of his colon, and this kinda suggests that sony has a lot to cover up for. Soooo… yeah.
Aragorn @ Sep 12th 2006 6:08PM
and I'd like to do a correction on my post. sorry, according to ted, insomniac is not 'owned' by sony.
However, it goes without saying that Sony owns an ample amount of Insomniac's stock... and thus I wonder... enough to control the company's interest? (I forgot... is that 50% or 60%?)
cerberus414 @ Sep 12th 2006 9:06PM
Wow, Finally, someone is on the same page as me. (I'm not bashing PS3 or anything, but as Arragon's said, it's very unlikely) I have a 360, and I don't buy M$'s bull either, it's all marketing, but in the end, it comes down to the consumers to find out the "truth".
cerberus414 @ Sep 12th 2006 9:16PM
Oh btw, if you still don't believe about this whole marketing thing then here is something. Notice how every time they bring up the benefits of BluRay, they always compare it to the DVD drive and how it would be impossible to fit a game on a DVD9. So, in essence,they do this to bash DVD9 more than to actually provide some useful information/insights about the game. Nuff said
Aragorn @ Sep 12th 2006 10:01PM
Cerberus: well... just remember... it's not really about sony vs m$oft. both are shameful in their own way (though I was pleasantly surprised about how much I got out of my 360).
But what puts sony in a special spot here is that at the moment... they're all talk. It's definitely a wait and see moment... but these absolutely brash claims aren't helping them.
cerberus414 @ Sep 13th 2006 4:07PM
Found an article that explains in detail the storage of Xbox 360:
http://www.gamesfirst.com/index.php?id=1132
Ian @ Sep 13th 2006 8:35PM
@Andir2.0
Why not use it? Because loading times will be a bitch. The PS3's drive is only 2X BD, thats slower than the 360's DVD drive meaning loading 20GBs of a game is gonna take a helluva long time. This 20GBs shit is a load of crap, IG is in sony's pocket.
Ian @ Sep 13th 2006 8:35PM
@Andir2.0
Why not use it? Because loading times will be a bitch. The PS3's drive is only 2X BD, thats slower than the 360's DVD drive meaning loading 20GBs of a game is gonna take a helluva long time. This 20GBs shit is a load of crap, IG is in sony's pocket.