None of these consoles are gonna be cranking out 4096x4096 uncompressed tiffs or targas any time soon.

He' s talking about the ability to display uncompressed textures in a game, it has more to do with storage space than how badass your GPU is.

Uncompressed textures are rather big, so they compress them to make them fit on a DVD. There' s loss of image quality when you compress an image, therefore a compressed texture in a game will look worse than an uncompressed one.

Now, in theory, adding Blu-Ray to the PS3 meant that with so much space available, audio and textures didn' t have to be compressed, so they should look better. However what the idiot at Sony Defense Force fails to realize is that the PS3 suffers from a memory bottleneck, and while they might be able to store all of that uncompressed data, displaying it is an entirely different ball-game.

PS3 is clearly more bottlenecked with textures than 360 is. The limiting factor is not the DVD space, it' s the video memory. This has been stated a hundred times, but PS3 has a max space of 256mb while the 360 has a maximum of 512mb minus whatever the CPU is using. The 360 also has eDRAM to do AA and save video memory. That' s why PS3 games have more jaggies than 360 games, AA takes a lot of video memory, PS3 doesn' t have it.

PS3 does have more potential to have more textures, such as having more levels and such but they still have to be more compressed than the 360 version can allow.

Textures are not what fills up a DVD anyways. It' s video and sound that will fill up the DVD.

Sorry guys, appear to have been talking out of my ass there.

I' ve been up for 2 days now, so you' ll have to forgive a little stupidity on my part.

That site is something...different...

And as for compression of images and sound, there is also losless compression available that retains the quality of the original. The compression isn' t as effective though. And another disadvantage is the extra power needed of course to uncompress.

Funny guy though. Talking about " when it gets released on the PS3" . AS if it' s a fact that' s been officially announced hehe

How much space does the final 360 version take up? Does it even fill the 8.6GB possible on a dual layer DVD? Somehow I doubt it. Also lossless compression can be applied for storage and be decompressed on the fly. This compression would be at least 2:1. Think RAW from digital cameras, only not compressed quite as much and much smaller files in terms of resolution. Even the freakin' Sega Genesis/Megadrive used lossless compression on many of their games (Sonic 1, 2, 3, etc) that decompressed on the fly.

Is there a PS3 version of this game coming out?

I doubt the PC version even takes more than one DVD.

No, there is no PS3 Version announced. And no, it doesn' t fill the whole DVD anyway, it' s 6,5 GB big.


Btw. I am somewhat surprised that people are still discussing about space. I mean how much less space did a N64 game cartridge hold compared to a CD ?

Btw. I am somewhat surprised that people are still discussing about space. I mean how much less space did a N64 game cartridge hold compared to a CD ?

How much CG video did N64 games have? That' s one of the significant things that saved the PS1, it was CG movies in the games. Obviously CG is less important these days when gaming hardware is competent.

But that' s what it comes down to when you have Blu-Ray for the PS3, it gives developers the ability to have significant CG video in their games. Where as the 360 really doesn' t have this ability. Even on the Wii there is more space for CG video than on the 360 as there is less space needed for other game assets.

DVD is not seriously comprimising 360 games but a HD format with more space would be nice to have. In next gen it will be neccessary for high end consoles.

dvd is current gen/last tech, I will always stick by Sony in includeing the Bluray drive, 5 years down the line it sure as hell be used.

Should I get the 360 version or the PC version?

My PC' s specs are
AMD athlon 5200+
2GB RAM
Ati Radeon X1900XT 512mb
X-fi Fatal1ty sound

I prefer FPS with mouse and keyboard but if the game runs better on a 360 than my PC I' d rather play it on a 360 as I think the controls in the demo were pretty good. And I hate the goddamn installing and tweaking and stuff you have to do with PC games. And my HDD is getting pretty full.
Unless there are any significant advantages of getting the PC version I' d rather get the 360 version... advice please.

Get the PC version. It' s cheaper, runs about the same with your setup and will have a longer shelf life.

with your hardware, you might have more or less the same graphic quality on your 360, however the Pc version features better control but the 360 is free from any hassle ( not that the PC does but shit happens a way more with PC) and you can play it on your big TV sitting on your couch. make your mind. i' ll go with the 360 version for playing at ease and the achievements.

your hardware, you might have more or less the same graphic quality on your 360, however the Pc version features better control but the 360 is free from any hassle ( not that the PC does but shit happens a way more with PC) and you can play it on your big TV sitting on your couch. make your mind. i' ll go with the 360 version for playing at ease and the achievements

How is a PC game more hassle? Xbox 360 is the only gaming platform that has ever given me any hassle with RROD and all. Having to install the game and having the option to adjust the graphical settings is by no means hassle.

did you read that parenthesis in my post ? Please read it goddamn it people read only what they want

Anyway, a pc gives problem more than the 360 does unless your 360 blow up, now that' s another story, shit happens with windows some time, i agree the OS is very stable nowadays , even vista is relatively stable but SHIT HAPPENS sometimes... a dll file is missing, error , crash to desktop, freezing, driver screwing up, weird glitches, all this shit happened to all of us one time or another and it was very frequent years ago... so while the pc platform today is very stable it can still be risky and not as stable as a console.

So i finaly ooh finaly was able to play Bioshock... my review might come in a couple of days.

[:' (][:' (][:' (]

Does the rest of the game hold up?

ORIGINAL: Abasoufiane

So i finaly ooh finaly was able to play Bioshock... my review might come in a couple of days.

I shiver with anticipation...

in fairness pc gaming is alot more hassle than console gaiming, becuase you have to install the game, input your activation code, launch the game, [that is if your direct x and whatever else is up to date] and then play, if your not getting a good fps you have to fiddle with the options untill you have something you like. all the while the console gamer was playing his game when the pc gamer was still installing it.

But some bonus for pc games are, the ability to download a nocd crack and leave the game on your hdd, no disc needed again. Better graphics and better controls [for certain games]

It should also be noted that you have to activate Bioshock online on the PC.

I shiver with anticipation...

if you don' t give a flying fuck about my impressions , you don' t have to be sarcastic about it