PGR4 limited by DVD9 size

Maybe because you mention the DC and then say it was a necessity? Maybe because DVD was not a necessity the last generation?

So? Nobody disputed the fact that you assumed just because you saw the words "DC", "DVD is a necessity" in one post. You still havent explained how does this have to do with DC\'s failure other than an assumption of yours?

Or the fact that even games without any FMV\'s exceeded  easilly 1.6 GB?

[GmanJoe]

Okay, so it runs on multi-DVD\'s but on one Blu-Ray. How does this hurt the gameplay? The gameplay, the most important factor, how exactly does it hurt it? Oh, it doesn\'t...I gotcha.  Get back to me when an important company says something along these lines...

"We had to cut a big portion of the game out because of space issues."

Until then, it\'s not a big deal. It just means people who own the 360 version will have to get up off the couch and switch discs...Oh NO!

Still, 360 Core is gonna be a pain for a few developers in the long run.

How is the Core going to be a pain? What are you even talking about? The Core did not come with a HD - this debate isn\'t about a lack of HD, it\'s about the format games are being put on.

So? Nobody disputed the fact that you assumed just because you saw the words "DC", "DVD is a necessity" in one post. You still havent explained how does this have to do with DC\'s failure other than an assumption of yours?

Or the fact that even games without any FMV\'s exceeded easilly 1.6 GB?

Or maybe, you should learn to phrase things. We\'ve already been over this and I\'m not the only one who got that impression from your original post. If that is not what you meant, fine, but don\'t act like you\'re innocent on this "misunderstanding". The way you phrased your post made a direct relation from one thing to another.

Need help? Let me break it down for you.

Your original post...

hehe its funny that we had similar discussions with almost identical arguments about the necessity of bigger storage format in the PS2 vs DC days. It is today common knowledge that DVD was a necessity after all.

You mention the argument about how storage formats with the PS2 and DC. You then turn around and say that it is now "common knowledge" that DVD is a "necessity". You don\'t make a paragraph break  or anything. You just mention a debate and then say that DVD is a "necessity", thus in return, you are saying that the DC was wrong to go with a GD-Rom. And to say something is a "necessity" is to imply that without it, it is doomed to fail, that it must have this one thing or otherwise it is lacking a crucial factor... Maybe you worded it poorly, maybe you didn\'t break it up properly, but either way, your original post can easily be seen as you saying the the lack of a DVD Rom hurt the DC in the long term, when infact, it didn\'t.



And who cares? Some of the greatest games on the DC was multi GD-ROM games. Like I said earlier, when the space becomes an issue that it effects the gameplay directly, then it\'s a problem. At this point, it doesn\'t effect the gameplay or price so it really isn\'t all that big of a deal.

[clips]

You mention the argument about how storage formats with the PS2 and DC. You then turn around and say that it is now "common knowledge" that DVD is a "necessity". You don\'t make a paragraph break  or anything. You just mention a debate and then say that DVD is a "necessity", thus in return, you are saying that the DC was wrong to go with a GD-Rom. And to say something is a "necessity" is to imply that without it, it is doomed to fail, that it must have this one thing or otherwise it is lacking a crucial factor... Maybe you worded it poorly, maybe you didn\'t break it up properly, but either way, your original post can easily be seen as you saying the the lack of a DVD Rom hurt the DC in the long term, when infact, it didn\'t.



And who cares? Some of the greatest games on the DC was multi GD-ROM games. Like I said earlier, when the space becomes an issue that it effects the gameplay directly, then it\'s a problem. At this point, it doesn\'t effect the gameplay or price so it really isn\'t all that big of a deal.

I was about to tell you and uni to go get a room, until i read this....i too got a kind of direct comparison of the ps2 vs dc (dvd vs cd) and without tryin\' to repeat what you stated, it did seem like he was indirectly sayin\' that because of cd the dc kinda fell off, but like viper i too didn\'t dwell too much on it....i think we get the idea of what both you and uni were tryin\' to get across, now it just seems you guys are battlin\' to get the last word...

Not really. I just don\'t appreciate someone saying that I am "assuming" something , when in fact, more than one person read it the same way I did.

Not really. I just don\'t appreciate someone saying that I am "assuming" something , when in fact, more than one person read it the same way I did

count me in as #3


I find it strange that in the last 12 years nobody ever complained when they had to switch disc\'s for multi disc games. Sure it would be a little more convenient to have the whole game pressed on one disc, but I doubt having to resort to multi-disc will in any way effect game play. as for the person who mentioned FMV i have 2 things to say about it.

It is mostly preferred today for games to use in engine for the videos(Real time cut-scenes) as FMW tends to take the player away from the game(not always some games it has it\'s place)

Even so multi-disc can solve that problem as it did for FF on the PlayStation.

Personally, I don\'t mind multi-disc games. Hell, in some situations I enjoy them, as they make me feel like I have accomplished something. I still remember fondly when Resident Evil: Code Veronica asked me for the second GD-ROM disc and everytime I played through the game I looked forward to that screen.  Another game that had the same effect was D2, a massive four GD-ROM\'s. I remember making each GD-ROM a milestone, knowing exactly how many discs I needed to finish to complete the game.


And thank you for also noticing what was said. It was not just me, the only thing is, I was the one who called him on it.

My fav multi disc game was shenmue

Man just to pass the first disc was was quite the accomplishment.

Blu-ray was incorporated in the ps3 primarily to assure sony dominance in the HD format wars( a tojan horse if you will) not to say that they will not take advantage of the blu-ray storage capacity. The ps3 higher price tag is a direct result of the blue laser diode.(without the blue laser the unit could have competed much better in terms of price.

Personally I got no problem with ps3 having a blu-ray drive, matter of fact i think it\'s kind of cool and in many was i am glad Sony included it but i refuse to pay a high premium price for system that lacks a solid library. When the ps3 price is goes through it\'s first price cut cycle and the AAA games start following I can assure I will be the first to buy the system. Hopefully when the quality games do start appearing SONY will reduce the price in order to increase interest and make the unit financially viable to the mass market consumers.  

Currently as it stands at the moment I cannot find enough justification for buying the ps3 unless you wanna watch blu-ray movies or be an early adopter(i prefer to download both the hd-dvd and blu-rays films, saves me all the trouble of having to buy 2 separate machines and paying a premium for movies i own in DVD)

[Viper_Fujax]

i think if they give you the option to put all the discs on ur harddrive, thatd be kind of cool. Would actually make use of the 120GB one.

With long RPG type games im fine with switching the discs, as long as they put it at well placed times. Iv honestly never played a game where i had to switch mid-game so i dunno how itd be. im pretty complacent so i doubt id care

I think the main issue here, is with the game "Rage", it isn\'t as if ID software is taking extra advantage of the storage, instead, they are just simply not having to make it multi-disc on the PS3. And if that becomes the case, then the issue of storage is a moot point, because it doesn\'t effect the overall gameplay.

Difference is gameplay (which is highly subjective and varied) and necessity of storage (absolute and objective) arent necessarilly following the same route. This is a false impression people are making because it sounds like common sense.  They are little correlated. Even if we compare two seperate generations.

 So this is irrelevant with efforts to judge how much the extra storage is needed

How is the Core going to be a pain? What are you even talking about? The Core did not come with a HD - this debate isn\'t about a lack of HD, it\'s about the format games are being put on.



Or maybe, you should learn to phrase things. We\'ve already been over this and I\'m not the only one who got that impression from your original post. If that is not what you meant, fine, but don\'t act like you\'re innocent on this "misunderstanding". The way you phrased your post made a direct relation from one thing to another.

Need help? Let me break it down for you.

Your original post...


You mention the argument about how storage formats with the PS2 and DC. You then turn around and say that it is now "common knowledge" that DVD is a "necessity". You don\'t make a paragraph break  or anything. You just mention a debate and then say that DVD is a "necessity", thus in return, you are saying that the DC was wrong to go with a GD-Rom. And to say something is a "necessity" is to imply that without it, it is doomed to fail, that it must have this one thing or otherwise it is lacking a crucial factor... Maybe you worded it poorly, maybe you didn\'t break it up properly, but either way, your original post can easily be seen as you saying the the lack of a DVD Rom hurt the DC in the long term, when infact, it didn\'t.



And who cares? Some of the greatest games on the DC was multi GD-ROM games. Like I said earlier, when the space becomes an issue that it effects the gameplay directly, then it\'s a problem. At this point, it doesn\'t effect the gameplay or price so it really isn\'t all that big of a deal.

No. You should learn to ASK when there is somethintg you arent sure about before wasting your time writing an essay. You tried for the billionth time to explain how does this have to do with DC\'s failure yet you talk again with assumptions.

Since I didnt break on anything including DC\'s failure before, this alone should have made you ask for an explanation than jump to a huge assumption, which is something you do with many other members as well.
 
Things are getting funnier assuming once again that I said SEGA\'s choice with the GD-ROM was a mistake without being able to point directly at that particular part. Define mistake. I d like next time you make such a post quoting me, to put in bold the parts I clearly implied what you are assuming.

Let me break it to you then because it is clearly your stubbornness that needs help and your predetermined impression you have about me. You could have asked for it before replying in such a manner. I would have gladly and happily put all the effort to sort things out....

Back in the days when DC was alive, it was discussed how "unnecessary" DVD was. Thats right. When the DC was alive. Thus "in the PS2 vs DC days". This was just describing the time period. And of course it was discussed because a DVD based console was either unreleased or freshly launched so it was obvious it was too soon to judge the DVD format. Thats why it was being discussed anyways then. Why should it if things were clear?
Then I said
"It is [SIZE="4"]today[/SIZE] common knowledge that DVD was a necessity after all."
TODAY. Today there are tons of games that came after DC died..

I dont mind if people arent sure about something I said. They are free to ask. I dont appreciate though people who dont ask and are getting offensive, jumping to assumptions as if they were clearly implied and such. Especially when there are more things than one that someone can derive from a post. You are still the only person that assumed. Others werent sure if thats what I ment they kind of sensed that it could be implied indirectly.

Besides it is not strange if more than one people jump to the wrong conclusions (Viper and Clips not included). Especially when these people are biased or are used to discuss such topics with the wrong people in the wrong places resulting to a false predetermined impression of others who are also trying to discuss such matters. Thus forming wrong assumptions about their posts.

No. You should learn to ASK when there is somethintg you arent sure about before wasting your time writing an essay. You tried for the billionth time to explain how does this have to do with DC\'s failure yet you talk again with assumptions.

I should not be required to ask something, when you directly imply something. Maybe english is not your native language, but your original post directly linked them. If you did not mean for that to happen, fine, but quit trying to turn this around as if your original post was fine and dandy, when in fact, it was far from it.

It is today common knowledge that DVD was a necessity after all."

The word "today" is not what you need to focus on. You used the word "necessity".

From WordReference.com

necessity, essential, requirement, requisite, necessary
       anything indispensable; "food and shelter are necessities of life"; "the essentials of the good life"; "allow farmers to buy their requirements under favorable conditions"; "a place where the requisites of water fuel and fodder can be obtained"

Now read that. Necessity, essential, requirement...Those words go hand in hand, and if you say something is a necessity, then that means it was essential or a requirement.

Now, instead of using the word "necessity", use another one such as "essential" and insert in it in your original post.

essential, indispensable
       absolutely necessary

So, if you say that there was a debate about storage issues and then you turn around and use a word such as "necessity" , one could directly link your two statements together. This is even more true if you don\'t even break for a paragraph. No, instead you went from one statement to another, all in the same, thus linking the two together.

The very fact that I am not the only one who thought that is what you implied, shows that you have no grasp of what you even posted. Yes, I jumped the gun and made a comment about it, but that\'s to be expected. This is a discussion forum and you made an outrageous comment (even if you didn\'t mean to), and I corrected it.

I should not be required to ask something, when you directly imply something. Maybe english is not your native language, but your original post directly linked them. If you did not mean for that to happen, fine, but quit trying to turn this around as if your original post was fine and dandy, when in fact, it was far from it.



The word "today" is not what you need to focus on. You used the word "necessity".

From WordReference.com


Now read that. Necessity, essential, requirement...Those words go hand in hand, and if you say something is a necessity, then that means it was essential or a requirement.

Now, instead of using the word "necessity", use another one such as "essential" and insert in it in your original post.



So, if you say that there was a debate about storage issues and then you turn around and use a word such as "necessity" , one could directly link your two statements together. This is even more true if you don\'t even break for a paragraph. No, instead you went from one statement to another, all in the same, thus linking the two together.

The very fact that I am not the only one who thought that is what you implied, shows that you have no grasp of what you even posted. Yes, I jumped the gun and made a comment about it, but that\'s to be expected. This is a discussion forum and you made an outrageous comment (even if you didn\'t mean to), and I corrected it.

 I ve already proven you that there was nothing directly implied regarding DC\'s failure and you fail to prove the opposite no matter how much you are still trying. Nobody disputed how someone can get the wrong impression from my post. The only thing you are doing right now is describe how you thought my posts, how many "one way" assumptions and how many wrong connections you made based on these assumptions. Even you werent so sure.

 Its funny that you are telling me where I should focus on. Thats exactly the problem right there. Its your mistake if YOU want to focus only on that word.  That gives another reason why you should have asked because it shows clearly that it is not my English the problem. It is how you stubbornly want to perceive someone\'s post. Clearly a problem on your behalf. I explained you my post yet you want to focus on the parts that satisfy your assumption. *shrugs*

I dont deny the ambiguity of my post. Others at least, unlike you, see this ambiguity and understand both where I am actually coming from and the other interpretation of my post even if they originally sensed indirectly the wrong interpretation due to this ambiguity.

I dont have a problem if someone wants to comment on my posts, and that isnt my complain. It is how you comment and how you want to perceive the other person you are discussing with. So long as you have "a one way" of interpreting things, have formed predetermined impressions of people, and you want only others to see things like you do, you will always have problems with many people in similar conversations. You never ever ask for someone to explain himself. You just watch and attack if something doesnt seem to follow your route and you always have one way of interpretation. You stuck into words and you forget that linguistic communication is imperfect and a dictionary doesnt fix it. It adds to the problem of trying to get a point across or try to understand someone. This is a far bigger problem than issues "with my English".

god yall arent even arguing over the statement anymore yall are arguing over the grammar and shit... and how you can turn a 4 line paragraph into a 2 page discussion is beyond me

Heres a fact for you: DC DIED... ok lets move on and end this discussion...


and if dvd isnt needed why dont we just play games on 8-20 CDs now days instead of DVD...? because storage is important and in the run will save space  (as in packaging) and able to manufacture quicker

is Blu ray needed now for gaming... no.... was dvd needed for the time around dc no... but 5 years later dc would of shown its age and my guess it will take longer for that to be the case with blu ray vs dvd

I dont deny the ambiguity of my post. Others at least, unlike you, see this ambiguity and understand both where I am actually coming from and the other interpretation of my post even if they originally sensed indirectly the wrong interpretation due to this ambiguity.

It\'s a forum, there is no room for "interpretation" or "ambiguity", so therefor, any misunderstanding was caused by you and your lack of knowledge.