Assassin's Creed (PS3) Preview

[RainOfTerror]

Assassin's Creed is set in 1191 AD, when the Third Crusade was tearing the Holy Land apart. Shrouded in secrecy and feared for their ruthlessness, the Assassins intend to stop the hostilities by suppressing both sides of the conflict. You assume the role of Altair and have the power to throw your immediate environment into chaos and to shape events during this pivotal moment in history. Here is a snip :

If the final look of Assassin's Creed bears any resemblance to what we saw, it has the potential to set the standard for PS3 graphics in much the same way Splinter Cell did for the Xbox. The minutely etched stone walls and smooth animations of Altair and the NPCs were every bit as thrilling to regard as Sam Fisher shooting out his first fluorescent light in the original Splinter Cell demo level. Ubisoft was quick to discount the Splinter Cell comparisons with regard to gameplay, however, pointing out that this game's not as much about visibility meters and stealth mechanics as it is about engaging with the world socially and emotionally as well as sneaking around in the finely wrought shadows. Check the full Assassin's Creed preview (http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=34233) over at WorthPlaying.

[bKangy]

They seem to be overhyping the graphics a bit, doesn't really look that much better than Oblivion to be honest. It still looks quite good though as a game though, but this article is definitely overhype to the max. It also didn't actually tell me anything. Gogo super preview!

[KidCactus]

They seem to be overhyping the graphics a bit, doesn't really look that much better than Oblivion to be honest.
So you think it looks better than Oblivion, but that doesn't satisfy you?

[Borys]

Dudes, WTF is wrong with your eyes?

This game doesn't event look better than Prince of Persia not to mention Oblivion.

The only thing that is truly and I mean *t*r*u*l*y* mind-blowing (according to people that have played it at E3) is the animation, even beyond Doom 3 PC levels.

[bean19]

Are the pics from the 360 version or the PS3 version?

[Varsity]

I wouldn't mind knowing why they made the game blue. It's the polar opposite of what it's really like there.

[RainOfTerror]

There is still debate and controversy over whether this title is a PS3 exclusive or not, whether it will also be on the X360 at all, which platform was at E3 .. yade yade ..

So far the only confirmed platform is the PS3, so thats most likely where the screens are from.

[Lord Dongkey]

The only thing that is truly and I mean *t*r*u*l*y* mind-blowing (according to people that have played it at E3) is the animation, even beyond Doom 3 PC levels.

Doom 3?

WTF?

[SexualChoc]

When I first saw Assassins Creed, I didn't think it was that good. Then I watched the trailer more and more, and began to love it. It looks very promising. The graphics look top notch, and it seems like a very intuitive game.

[Borys]

Doom 3?

WTF?

Doom 3 has the best animation in a game to date.

[cbell86]

as of now, i'm pretty sure the existence of a 360 version is still pending. So I will say PS3 (though developers have been often quoted as saying the two systems are almost indistinguishable) but then again...it's possible they don't even have complete betas yet...as rumored yesterday

[bKangy]

So you think it looks better than Oblivion, but that doesn't satisfy you?

No, it looks slightly better, the texturing is probably worse I'd say though. And this is for nearly 150% of the 360 price... I'm not satisfied, no.

[The Continental]

I wouldn't mind knowing why they made the game blue. It's the polar opposite of what it's really like there.

Seriously. If any game called for the over exposed HDR lighting that has come to define "next gen" graphics, it'd be game set in the middle east.

[Captain Awesome]

(according to people that have played it at E3) is the animation, even beyond Doom 3 PC levels.

You use Doom 3 as a gauge for in-game animation? Pass what you're smokin' homie.

[Captain Awesome]

as of now, i'm pretty sure the existence of a 360 version is still pending.

Yeah, I have a feeling this is only a "timed" exclusive.

[Thenetcase]

The comments in this post once again are sufficient proof that most of the people here are f'ing idiots.

This game looks great. The animations look great.
Doom 3 looked like shiny, polished crap and so did it's animations (especially it's animations). Doom 3 needed a serious tone-down on the bump maping and reflective crap. Oblivion's dungeons are scarier than Doom 3's :P I don't know WTF you're comparing these animations to Doom 3 for.

-TNC-

[Reanimated]

Dudes, WTF is wrong with your eyes?

This game doesn't event look better than Prince of Persia not to mention Oblivion.

The only thing that is truly and I mean *t*r*u*l*y* mind-blowing (according to people that have played it at E3) is the animation, even beyond Doom 3 PC levels.



The hell?

Anyway, I think it looks great, but I'll be waiting for the upgraded 360 version. :)

[Leon_X_Macbeth]

Man, what? This game looks great... I don't get it with you guys. If its not for the 360, you bash the shit outta it, especially if its for the PS3. You all find stupid excuses to get on the PS3's case... If they announced it for the 360, I'm sure the bashing would be toned down alot.

[Borys]

I wasn't talking about Doom 3's SHINY, BUMPMAPPED GRAPHICS but about its awesome, fluid animations, there's a big difference.

Doom 3 had fucking best animations even when running in 320x240, low-everything mode.

[Thenetcase]

I wasn't talking about Doom 3's SHINY, BUMPMAPPED GRAPHICS but about its awesome, fluid animations, there's a big difference.

Doom 3 had fucking best animations even when running in 320x240, low-everything mode.

you're retarded. seriously.

The animations in Doom 3 were not THAT good dude. Get some glasses. Those inbred eyes of yours are having troubles.

-TNC-

[IRONGUSTAV]

sorry dudes i have seen this game on and ubisoft reel video ( promotion for some magazines here in europe) in game ( not the render intro) and the game is AWESOME,really AWESOME miles better than oblivion,oblivion characters move like robots vs this game,also the game gives you lots of freedom (u can use a horse outside the cities) and a bit of spolier,on the video i saw some futuristic shit like time travel

and another spolier.this game is for 360 also,i dont know when but some guys at the presentation were working on 360 too

another fav fav game in that video was raimbow syx vegas,i was floored with all things they have done with that game

[51|RandoM]

The comments in this post once again are sufficient proof that most of the people here are f'ing idiots.

Doom 3 looked like shiny, polished crap and so did it's animations (especially it's animations). Doom 3 needed a serious tone-down on the bump maping and reflective crap. Oblivion's dungeons are scarier than Doom 3's :P I don't know WTF you're comparing these animations to Doom 3 for.

-TNC-

It is pretty obvious you don't know wtf he is talking about, seeing as how he said animation and all you talked about was bump mapping, reflective textures, and level design.

Maybe you were just being a "f'ing idiot" to prove the original point of your post?

[Plac1d]

sorry dudes i have seen this game on and ubisoft reel video ( promotion for some magazines here in europe) in game ( not the render intro) and the game is AWESOME,really AWESOME miles better than oblivion,oblivion characters move like robots vs this game,also the game gives you lots of freedom (u can use a horse outside the cities) and a bit of spolier,on the video i saw some futuristic shit like time travel

Does the game proceed by levels or is it open-ended gameplay like Oblivion?

[holysin]

So, did the demo contain gameplay? Does the trailer have any sort of gameplay mechanics working or is it (probably) entirely scripted?

I'd really like to see the gameplay in action...

[kathode]

There was a behind-closed-doors demo at e3 of the actual game. Some people from work got to see it and they said what everyone here said - the animation is supposed to be unbelievable. Also they're doing large crowds and it apparently works very well. I believe the game plays out in levels similar to Thief.

I don't remember anything particularly amazing about Doom 3 animation. I think Half-Life 2 has set the bar for an individual human character at least.

[holysin]

Is there a video of that anywhere?

[schnodder]

i hope this game is not as hard as prince of persia.

[gawaintheblind]

I was going to say "finally, it looks like they came up with a reason to get a ps3"

but of course its coming for 360 too.

so.. uh.. never mind.

[Apex]

As of now this game is:

PS3 Exclusive, other platforms pending. (Check official forums if you dont believe me)

This Game is the first of a new Franchise Ubisoft is trying to get going.

According to Ubisoft, the trailers are ingame footage of gameplay.

The game takes place in 3 cities, each accessible by 2 overlapping areas. It is non-linear game play. You play a guy called Altair a new recruit into a secretive order of Assassins. It's a stealth game based on 'social stealth' i.e. melding with crowds etc.

THERE IS NO TIME TRAVEL IN THIS GAME.

This has been officially stated on the forums, so anyone who says there is, is lying. Instead the narrative of the game is a descendent of Altair, the character whom you play. He is recalling Altairs achievements through 'genetic memory'. Your ability to survive in the game is based on a 'confidence meter' representing how believable Altairs survivability in the given circumstance. I.e. the narrator is telling you a story in which a part that you find hard to believe, so confidence in Altair surviving is low = harder gameplay kind of thing. But your 'living the story' through Altairs eyes kinds of thing.

The plot of the game is about trying to make knowledge available to all. The Templars are trying to keep a secret for their own purposes, its about preventing another war/crusade.

My personal opinions:
Mainly because of the many conspiracies regarding the templars through history. I believe the franchise will be based on different descendents of the narrator through different time periods leading up to the narrators time period. Including a franchise wideplot. Each game being a revealing part of the plot with a different descendent, each one based on the previous and affecting the next.

[tombofsoldier]

I hope this makes its way to the 360. It sounds like it could be a great game, but I refuse to buy a PS3.
PSA: The trailer they released WAS CG MORANS. Just look at the damned screenshots from the article. Thats real gameplay, looks good but its not GOW hype worthy.

[Venkman]

Dudes, WTF is wrong with your eyes?

This game doesn't event look better than Prince of Persia not to mention Oblivion.


I would say 99% of the gaming press disagrees with you on that one. Or I guess every one else could be wrong and you could be right.

[Kamalot]

Doom 3 has the best animation in a game to date.
I completely disagree. I remember reading interviews with the dev team. They were saying how much easier it was to animate the monsters in Doom 3 cause nobody knew what a flaming-skull-upside-down-spider really moves like. This allowed them to get away with a lot of animation falsehoods and trickery that wouldn't fly if applied to more realistic games.

[Siraris]

I honestly can't believe that there are people in this thread saying that this game is anything short of gorgeous. Compared to Oblivion this looks substantially better in almost every way. The faces are modeled much more realistically, the cloth on Altair is fabulous, the water, the lighting, everything looks better and it's still in development. The gameplay and story sound AWESOME as well. Very excited for this franchise.

I don't know about the animation, as all I've seen is that trailer, but PoP and Splinter Cell had fantastic animation so I'm sure it's leaps and bounds better in Assassins Creed. Whether or not it's for PS3 and 360 or just PS3, it's going to be great.

And someone mentioned R6 Vegas, and I just have to say, wow. I saw the 10 minute video the other day from IGN, and I was blown away. That game looks so incredibly fun. I have never really played a R6 game before, but it looks like it will be so much fun.

[Wonka]

I am confident that:

1) This game will be great

2) This game will come to the 360


#1 is partially a leap of faith, and paritally based on what everyone has said (fingers crossed).

#2 is based on #1 still being true, and the noncontroversial assumption that Ubisoft still likes money.

[bone4ahead]

Doom 3 has good and bad animation. The bad was all the normal stuff, like monster movement and guns firing. On the other hand, the scipted sequences of monsters ripping through doors and windows, monsters crawling by on the roof, and some monsters closets etc were actually really good.

[nein89]

i hope this game is not as hard as prince of persia.

I hate you.

Anyway. Some of Doom 3's animation was very good, some of it not so much. I remember being especially impressed at one bit with an imp tearing through a staircase; scripted, but still much more fluid than what I'm used to seeing in games.

[IRONGUSTAV]

Does the game proceed by levels or is it open-ended gameplay like Oblivion?

the guys of ubi comment about three big cities conected

alas,the trailers were CG not ingame,ingame looks awesome but not THAT awesome

[Zanzibar]

Q1 2007 console totals (projected):

PS3: 2-5 million sold
X360: 10-14 million sold

Pretty sure the accountants and marketing folks at Ubisoft would be raising some hell over there.

[IRONGUSTAV]

As of now this game is:

PS3 Exclusive, other platforms pending. (Check official forums if you dont believe me)

This Game is the first of a new Franchise Ubisoft is trying to get going.

According to Ubisoft, the trailers are ingame footage of gameplay.

The game takes place in 3 cities, each accessible by 2 overlapping areas. It is non-linear game play. You play a guy called Altair a new recruit into a secretive order of Assassins. It's a stealth game based on 'social stealth' i.e. melding with crowds etc.

THERE IS NO TIME TRAVEL IN THIS GAME.

This has been officially stated on the forums, so anyone who says there is, is lying. Instead the narrative of the game is a descendent of Altair, the character whom you play. He is recalling Altairs achievements through 'genetic memory'. Your ability to survive in the game is based on a 'confidence meter' representing how believable Altairs survivability in the given circumstance. I.e. the narrator is telling you a story in which a part that you find hard to believe, so confidence in Altair surviving is low = harder gameplay kind of thing. But your 'living the story' through Altairs eyes kinds of thing.

The plot of the game is about trying to make knowledge available to all. The Templars are trying to keep a secret for their own purposes, its about preventing another war/crusade.

My personal opinions:
Mainly because of the many conspiracies regarding the templars through history. I believe the franchise will be based on different descendents of the narrator through different time periods leading up to the narrators time period. Including a franchise wideplot. Each game being a revealing part of the plot with a different descendent, each one based on the previous and affecting the next.

sorry dude,but on the reel video ( was some guy playing) when the assasin died,the scene turns into a scifi future laboratory,with a doctor ( a woman) telling u some shit about the mission,maybe its not time travel,but the game have some scfi component for sure

[IRONGUSTAV]

Q1 2007 console totals (projected):

PS3: 2-5 million sold
X360: 10-14 million sold

Pretty sure the accountants and marketing folks at Ubisoft would be raising some hell over there.

with that logic nobody make xbox games in the past

[Steele Johnson]

Hopefully it's coming out for the 360 because I really need to avoid buying a PS3 at all costs.

[Zanzibar]

with that logic nobody make xbox games in the past
Well, I was more thinking of if you've GOT an X360 version (like Ubisoft apparently does), then it would make a lot more sense to release it at the same time as the PS3 version to generate a lot of buzz and cash in on the advertising for both versions, thus increasing sales on both.

[torrefaction]

Well, I was more thinking of if you've GOT an X360 version (like Ubisoft apparently does), then it would make a lot more sense to release it at the same time as the PS3 version to generate a lot of buzz and cash in on the advertising for both versions, thus increasing sales on both.

Actually, the smarter move would seem (to me) to be to release only one at first. It creates buzz, and people who aren't able to get it will clammer for it. This is only so long as they don't wait too long between releases (1-3 months). You stagger it, and create a greater overall demand...and you keep a rolling advertising blitz. Eh..

Anyone..this is one of those games that could push me over the edge (FFXIII, MGS4), but since odds are it won't be exclusive (This is Ubisoft we're talking about) I probably won't have to lay out $600.

[Mr.Condescension]

Are the pics from the 360 version or the PS3 version?

There is no 360 version as of yet to show pics from. That's still rumor mill at this point.

[Mr.Condescension]

As of now this game is:

PS3 Exclusive, other platforms pending. (Check official forums if you dont believe me)

This Game is the first of a new Franchise Ubisoft is trying to get going.

According to Ubisoft, the trailers are ingame footage of gameplay.

The game takes place in 3 cities, each accessible by 2 overlapping areas. It is non-linear game play. You play a guy called Altair a new recruit into a secretive order of Assassins. It's a stealth game based on 'social stealth' i.e. melding with crowds etc.

THERE IS NO TIME TRAVEL IN THIS GAME.


Finally, new information! Where did you get the new information such as confidence and descendants? The ubisoft forums?

[Apex]

sorry dude,but on the reel video ( was some guy playing) when the assasin died,the scene turns into a scifi future laboratory,with a doctor ( a woman) telling u some shit about the mission,maybe its not time travel,but the game have some scfi component for sure

Sorry m8, but you are wrong. What you said does not confirm Time Travel. Ubisoft themselves have stated that there is no Time Travel and said the game is narrated by an ancestor of Altair (ancestor meaning a descendent sometime in the future). The information I put in my comment is straight from the "All known Facts" thread on the Ubisoft Assassin Creed official forum

Click here for thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/5701064934)



Finally, new information! Where did you get the new information such as confidence and descendants? The ubisoft forums?

From the thread on the Ubisoft forums linked above. Should of been more specific. It is covered in articles by journalists who have played the game at Ubisoft.

[IRONGUSTAV]

Sorry m8, but you are wrong. What you said does not confirm Time Travel. Ubisoft themselves have stated that there is no Time Travel and said the game is narrated by an ancestor of Altair (ancestor meaning a descendent sometime in the future). The information I put in my comment is straight from the "All known Facts" thread on the Ubisoft Assassin Creed official forum

Click here for thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/5701064934)



From the thread on the Ubisoft forums linked above. Should of been more specific. It is covered in articles by journalists who have played the game at Ubisoft.


i dont know about that faq on that forum,im talking about what i saw..a guy playing the game,the real stuff

[Borys]

I completely disagree. I remember reading interviews with the dev team. They were saying how much easier it was to animate the monsters in Doom 3 cause nobody knew what a flaming-skull-upside-down-spider really moves like. This allowed them to get away with a lot of animation falsehoods and trickery that wouldn't fly if applied to more realistic games.

That's mighty fine but did you play the game yourself?

I did and it wowed me with how smooth everything moved.

BTW way to bring up an example of... flaming skull, Kamalot.

Anyway, most people disagree here with me but I just remembered that Doom 3 is the most hated game, next to STEAM service, WoW post 60 and Duke Nukem Forever on this very forum, fancy that,

[Eran Hawke]

How did this thread turn into a discussion of assassin ceeed and doom 3?

I played Doom 3. I don't remember much except how boooorrrring the game was. And dark. so damn dark. Nothing wowed me about the animation.

This Midway game does not look like anything special either, just another run around and shoot people kinda thing.

Maybe I'm getting tired of the same old game again and again, with more bump maps each time. Where's the great compelling gameplay?

5 years from now, every game will have light-bloom, spectacular animation, bump mapping, specular hilights and a bunch of other fancy technology, but they'll all be the same game underneath.

Sad.

[ProfPuppet]

It looks nice, and I'm looking forward to seeing it in motion, in-game. The believability meter thing instead of hitpoints seems interesting. If I'm reading it right it seems like it would somewhat force the player not to do those '1 man against an army' kinds of things and keep them picking off opponents at a more reasonable rate.

As for Doom III having incredible animations... Scripted ones, yes. Non-scripted, no. When I think of great animation I think of the Oddworld games.

[Captain Awesome]

When I think of great animation I think of the Oddworld games.

You're also comparing a 2d game to a 3d game. While 2d is limited in tech it can be a bit more free in the amount of drawn frames per character. But yes it was beautiful in terms of 2d animation. I think in 3d, HL2 had the much more impressive animation and animation system system. Epesically in Ep:1 where the characters got anywhere from 100 to 200 more animations than in HL2.


And to not completely add to this derailed thread, AC does look interesting. I think it looks very nice.


:P

[Major Dan]

I too hope it makes it to the 360, the game looks fun.

I too hope, it isn't as hard as Prince of Persia!

I think, from the E-3 trailer, which is probably pre-rendered, it looks good. Hope the final games looks even close.

[Jack B]

This game was nominated as Best Console Game of the Show by the www.gamecriticsawards.com .

Everything I've read from 1st hand reports seems impressed. I like the AI I've read about. I'm looking forward to it.

[Mr.Condescension]

You're also comparing a 2d game to a 3d game.

Stranger's Wrath was a 3d oddworld game, and it had pretty good animation if memory serves. Certainly better than most shooters.

[Captain Awesome]

Stranger's Wrath was a 3d oddworld game, and it had pretty good animation if memory serves. Certainly better than most shooters.

Yes! That was beautifully animated.

[Mr.Condescension]

Yes! That was beautifully animated.

I'd list ICO as another well animated game.

[SSJ-0440]

This game will never go to the 360, I know the producer. I ask her and she said, the game is too big to port it to the 360 and beside Bill won't let UBsoft put it on more than one discs. Bill said try to compress it as much as you can but Jade Raymond dosn't like the idea of compressing and removing most of the cool part from the game inorder to fit it on one dvd-9, so she decided to not port for the 360. That is why you only heard news for the PS3 and not the 360. Sorry everyone but the 360 just dosn't have enough storage to go along with the next gen games.

[Mr.Condescension]

This game will never go to the 360, I know the producer. I ask her and she said, the game is too big to port it to the 360 and beside Bill won't let UBsoft put it on more than one discs. Bill said try to compress it as much as you can but Jade Raymond dosn't like the idea of compressing and removing most of the cool part from the game inorder to fit it on one dvd-9, so she decided to not port for the 360. That is why you only heard news for the PS3 and not the 360. Sorry everyone but the 360 just dosn't have enough storage to go along with the next gen games.

I'm going to go ahead and beat the xbox fanboys to this and say I don't particularly believe you. Ubisoft could possibly believe the game runs best on blu-ray and need it for their vision, but I doubt the part about MS not allowing multi-DVD games. We'll find out the whole story eventually.

edit: Just went through this guys 6 posts and they're all anti-microsoft. I'm going to call this a true Sony fanbois and call it a wrap.

[Major Dan]

This game will never go to the 360, I know the producer. I ask her and she said, the game is too big to port it to the 360 and beside Bill won't let UBsoft put it on more than one discs. Bill said try to compress it as much as you can but Jade Raymond dosn't like the idea of compressing and removing most of the cool part from the game inorder to fit it on one dvd-9, so she decided to not port for the 360. That is why you only heard news for the PS3 and not the 360. Sorry everyone but the 360 just dosn't have enough storage to go along with the next gen games.

Dude???? :confused:

You are da bomb--




Not in a good way.

[nein89]

I too hope, it isn't as hard as Prince of Persia!

Okay, I give up. Were Warrior Within and Two Thrones vastly more difficult than Sands of Time?

[Major Dan]

Okay, I give up. Were Warrior Within and Two Thrones vastly more difficult than Sands of Time?

I sucked at Sands of Time, the jumping, oh the horror of the jumping puzzles. I have always been lacking at the jumping side of platformers, especially the 2D ones and that was a definate throw back to them, it seemed to me.

I like the game otherwise, but I didn't even try the other two.

[LogainAblar]

Okay, I give up. Were Warrior Within and Two Thrones vastly more difficult than Sands of Time?

I don't know about Warrior Within, but Two Thrones was certainly more difficult, though not really that hard.

Also, I don't buy the statement that the E3 trailer is in-game footage. That's a pretty odd thing for Ubisoft to claim, seeing as how screens have been released that clearly show the game with a lower graphical quality.

That said, this game sounds extremely interesting, and if it does turn out to be a PS3 exclusive, then mad props to Sony for getting that contract signed.

Also, regarding the "bluish" hue: Anyone seen Kingdom of Heaven? That also had a blue tint to much of the movie, and I'd bet money that it influenced Ubisoft.

[Captain Awesome]

This game will never go to the 360, I know the producer. I ask her and she said, the game is too big to port it to the 360 and beside Bill won't let UBsoft put it on more than one discs. Bill said try to compress it as much as you can but Jade Raymond dosn't like the idea of compressing and removing most of the cool part from the game inorder to fit it on one dvd-9, so she decided to not port for the 360. That is why you only heard news for the PS3 and not the 360. Sorry everyone but the 360 just dosn't have enough storage to go along with the next gen games.

http://www.allfunpics.com/data/media/5/bullshit3.jpg

[SSJ-0440]

Hey believed it or not, is all up to you peoples. I'm just telling the truth and if you wish to ignore it with such believed than do so. I inform only fact and fact is my life.

[Mr.Condescension]

You people believed it did I not. I'm just ignoring BS you wish to do so believe. I listen only fact and fact is death my.

[kathode]

Anyone who saw the in-game demo will tell you that the trailer is mostly in-game assets but they've all been "sexed up" with enhanced lighting and cinematic effects. I wouldn't use that as a definite example of how it looks.

And yeah, anyone who thinks Ubisoft is actually doing a real PS3 exclusive is retarded. They do everything for everything, all the time. It will come to 360, I'd bet my bottom dollar.

[Mr.Condescension]

Anyone who saw the in-game demo will tell you that the trailer is mostly in-game assets but they've all been "sexed up" with enhanced lighting and cinematic effects. I wouldn't use that as a definite example of how it looks.

And yeah, anyone who thinks Ubisoft is actually doing a real PS3 exclusive is retarded. They do everything for everything, all the time. It will come to 360, I'd bet my bottom dollar.

Because red steel isn't a wii exclusive. :rolleyes:

[Jack B]

This game will never go to the 360, I know the producer. I ask her and she said, the game is too big to port it to the 360 and beside Bill won't let UBsoft put it on more than one discs. Bill said try to compress it as much as you can but Jade Raymond dosn't like the idea of compressing and removing most of the cool part from the game inorder to fit it on one dvd-9, so she decided to not port for the 360. That is why you only heard news for the PS3 and not the 360. Sorry everyone but the 360 just dosn't have enough storage to go along with the next gen games.

:D :D :D :D

[Kamalot]

http://www.allfunpics.com/data/media/5/bullshit3.jpg
You know it stinks mighty bad when you gotta break out the big can of bullshit spray. :eek:

[sTubbs]

I'd list ICO as another well animated game.

So is the Splinter Cell series. The enemies and NPCs not so much, but the subleties and smoothness of Fisher's movements are top notch. Double points considering it is all animated and not mo-capped

[mister_slim]

No, it looks slightly better, the texturing is probably worse I'd say though. And this is for nearly 150% of the 360 price... I'm not satisfied, no.
You know, I might agree with you if I'd ever seen Oblivion show more than eight or so characters on screen at a time.

[Mr.Condescension]

So is the Splinter Cell series. The enemies and NPCs not so much, but the subleties and smoothness of Fisher's movements are top notch. Double points considering it is all animated and not mo-capped

I thought it was animated over mo-cap.

[Kamalot]

I thought it was animated over mo-cap.
It can still be animated nicely without being dynamic.

Look, there are lots of people throwing around, buzzwords about how something is done instead of the end result. Industry people and fanboys alike that are on about 'volumetric surfaces, 'dynamic skeletal animation' and ‘per-pixel-mapping’.

That’s nice, but there is a fundamental flaw in this approach.

Nobody really cares. Oh, sure there are some. The people who create and use these techniques care, as do the marketing people and fanboys. Many of these so-called ‘features’ don’t mean a damned thing to consumers.

Why would 99% of the consumers care HOW the grass was made to look pretty? Why would people care how the beautiful dancer moves? Why would people care how the soft reflections in her eyes shine? As long as the grass is green, the dancer moves gracefully and her eyes shimmer like deep reflecting pools, people won’t care how it is done behind the scenes.

And people shouldn’t care.

Like a great magician knows, the tricks he is about to perform require the audience to be a little unknowing of what is happening behind the scenes.

So while it is interesting to know about these invisible ‘features’ they shouldn’t alter or affect our purchasing decision. Look at the games for yourself. See how they move, how they play. Decide for yourself if the games look fun or derivative and dull.

If you buy your games or consoles by the bullet point list of features, then you aren’t buying the best game or console. You are buying the best list of bullet points.

[Mr.Condescension]

A bunch of stuff

Calm down. I think Splinter Cell is well animated as well. I was asking a simple question based on stubbs giving it "Double points considering it is all animated and not mo-capped". Nobody is slamming an xbox game in this thread, it's ok. False alarm.

[Kamalot]

Calm down. I think Splinter Cell is well animated as well. I was asking a simple question based on stubbs giving it "Double points considering it is all animated and not mo-capped". Nobody is slamming an xbox game in this thread, it's ok. False alarm.
I don't know HOW you got that out of my message. In fact, it misses the point completely. It can be motion-captured, keyframed, claymation, illistruated by babboons off the coast of Iceland, it does not matter. If a game looks good, it looks good.

The message wasn't aimed at you specifically. If it was, you'd have gotten it in a PM.

I couldn't care less if you are making fun of an Xbox (or a Playstation, or a GameCube, etc.) game. I do it myself all the time.

[Samo Umer]

I hope this makes its way to the 360. It sounds like it could be a great game, but I refuse to buy a PS3.
PSA: The trailer they released WAS CG MORANS. Just look at the damned screenshots from the article. Thats real gameplay, looks good but its not GOW hype worthy.

the last "screenshot" is actually a drawing...

[Mr.Condescension]

I don't know HOW you got that out of my message. In fact, it misses the point completely. It can be motion-captured, keyframed, claymation, illistruated by babboons off the coast of Iceland, it does not matter. If a game looks good, it looks good.

The message wasn't aimed at you specifically. If it was, you'd have gotten it in a PM.

I couldn't care less if you are making fun of an Xbox (or a Playstation, or a GameCube, etc.) game. I do it myself all the time.

Oh, well I thought it was generally a known concept that motion capture rarely looks as good as animation done by hand. That's why they made sure to animate over motion cap for golum in LOR. I just assumed that was a generally held belief (as it seems the other poster did) that mo-cap doesn't do that great a job and that actual arists are required for convincing animation. Maybe that's just my point of view from being trained as an animator in college.

[LogainAblar]

Because red steel isn't a wii exclusive. :rolleyes:

Red Steel is in a different category, and you know that as well as anyone. I don't think I need to list the significant commononalities between the PS3 and Xbox 360 that support the notion that Ubisoft might cross-platform a game on one of these systems in order to expand it's user-base.

I really wouldn't be surprised if Sony felt they had a major hit on their hands and threw whatever money it would take to get an exclusivity contract, but I don't buy the notion that ithe decision would in any way be related to hardware.

[Kamalot]

Oh, well I thought it was generally a known concept that motion capture rarely looks as good as animation done by hand [...] Maybe that's just my point of view from being trained as an animator in college.I don't know what arrogant bus you got off of, but you sure do live up to your namesake.

[bean19]

I'm going to go ahead and beat the xbox fanboys to this and say I don't particularly believe you. Ubisoft could possibly believe the game runs best on blu-ray and need it for their vision, but I doubt the part about MS not allowing multi-DVD games. We'll find out the whole story eventually.

edit: Just went through this guys 6 posts and they're all anti-microsoft. I'm going to call this a true Sony fanbois and call it a wrap.

Why would they prefer a game on Blu-Ray? It is an inferior storage medium for gaming. Sure, you can get a crap-ton of data on a Blu-Ray disc, but the data transfer rate is really slow and that means longer load screens. If the game is actually big enough that it won't fit on a DVD even with compression (Condemned is a 9 GB game and fit on a single DVD with short load screens), then they could simply split the game up into separate DVDs, the way RPGs have been splitting their games between CDs for ages. I'd rather spend 30 seconds changing out DVDs once during the life of a game, than have to spend 30 extra seconds on every damn load screen.

Anyway, the reason most people assume this is also going to come out for the X360 is that it was demoed on an X360 at E3 and it was shown at an X360 trade show (in an earlier build). Sony MAY have payed them to release on the PS3 FIRST (or to simply not talk about other consoles yet), but they are definitely developing for both next-gen platforms.

[Venkman]

Why would they prefer a game on Blu-Ray? It is an inferior storage medium for gaming. Sure, you can get a crap-ton of data on a Blu-Ray disc, but the data transfer rate is really slow and that means longer load screens.

Remember the PS1 vs. the N64? There were no load times to speak of on N64. But where did FF7 go?

Although Borys and I disagree on many viewpoints, I gotta say Doom 3 had awesome animation. Even if it was a little jumpy on my Xbox. The game scared the hell outta me. I loved that.

As for the guy who was trained as an animator in college, what are you doing now? That's not an insult, but a genuine question. I was trained as an animator in college and I am not doing C.A. for a living. Sucks.

[Kamalot]

Remember the PS1 vs. the N64? There were no load times to speak of on N64. But where did FF7 go?
This is funny. Yes, FF VII came to the Playstation cause Nintendo screwed up. It also came on multiple discs, and nobody cared.

As a matter of fact, I seem to remeber people being excited about a game so big that it had to come on so many discs.

[holysin]

It can still be animated nicely without being dynamic.

Look, there are lots of people throwing around, buzzwords about how something is done instead of the end result. Industry people and fanboys alike that are on about 'volumetric surfaces, 'dynamic skeletal animation' and ‘per-pixel-mapping’.

That’s nice, but there is a fundamental flaw in this approach.

Nobody really cares. Oh, sure there are some. The people who create and use these techniques care, as do the marketing people and fanboys. Many of these so-called ‘features’ don’t mean a damned thing to consumers.

Why would 99% of the consumers care HOW the grass was made to look pretty? Why would people care how the beautiful dancer moves? Why would people care how the soft reflections in her eyes shine? As long as the grass is green, the dancer moves gracefully and her eyes shimmer like deep reflecting pools, people won’t care how it is done behind the scenes.

And people shouldn’t care.


Why not? Just because YOU don't have any use for it, doesn't mean other people can't know these stuff.
Maybe they want to know it just because they're interested in the industry, much like how a person can know how a car works (and know how to fix it) even though he doesn't work with cars at all. For most people, it's useless knowledge, but for some it's simply interesting. Not everybody needs to be completely oblivious to what's going on around them.

Others plan to be a part of the industry, these guys have to know stuff no matter if you think it's useful or not.

So, naturally, you might not care about motion capture, but lots of people do. Why? because motion capture usually looks nicer, if someone is managinc to make some good animations without motion capture, they deserve the credit for a job well done.

[Kamalot]

So, naturally, you might not care about motion capture, but lots of people do. Why? because motion capture usually looks nicer, if someone is managinc to make some good animations without motion capture, they deserve the credit for a job well done.
If you are interested in animation, then please; learn as much about the techniques as you can. I am saying, for the most part, people don't need to know about these techniques to enjoy a game. Spouting off 'invisible' tricks, techniques or features shouldn't matter to end-consumers. If you are interested in being in the industry, then you aren't most people, you are special.

For the end consumer/gamer, if they look at a game, it should look good and move well. How it achieves that is irrevelant to the gamer. What matters is the end product, not the magic required to achieve it.

Your statement contradicts Mr.Condescension who believes motion capture is inferior to hand-tweaked animation. :eek:

[holysin]

I am saying, for the most part, people don't need to know about these techniques to enjoy a game.

Your statement contradicts Mr.Condescension who believes motion capture is inferior to hand-tweaked animation. :eek:

They don't need to, that doesn't mean they're not allowed. People are just curious, it's only natural you'll want to learn more about something you like or are interested in.
Hell, that's why there are making offs of movies, music videos and whatnot. You can bet we'll be seeing more and more making offs for games, either included on a collector's edition or shown on tv/internet.

And regarding motion capture vs hand-tweaked... Motion capture isn't perfect, you're not going to get the ideal animation on your first try. Hand-tweaking later is simply easier and cheaper than planning another motion capture "recording" session (surely the wrong word, lol) just so you can change a tiny movement, or that it'll "fit" better with the 3d model you want to animate.

Plus, hand-animated requires a good artist, not anyone will be able to pull it off. Take a look at Oblivion, it has some horrendous animations, they went with hand-animated only and they're certainly not that talented. Could've looked better with motion capture.
From the making off I saw, it'd seem the lead animator spent most her time animating the horse. The horse looks somewhat ok, as long as you don't expect it to look natural when you jump.

[Apex]

i dont know about that faq on that forum,im talking about what i saw..a guy playing the game,the real stuff

Um m8, that forum is Ubisofts's official Assasins Creed forum

Ubisoft have not shown anyone anything about Time Travel in Assassins Creed. People speculated that time travel might be in Assassins Creed but Ubisoft have stated that it is not.

If you saw someone playing Assassins Creed and saw something that is definately time travel in the game. Then you better go tell Ubisoft and everyone who was at E3 because nobody else did.

-----------

As for the PS3 exclusive v Multi platform debate. I'm going to put my money on it being multi-platform after a timed exlusive. If the game were 1st party sure, an exclusive. But its 3rd party meaning Ubisoft wants to make money off it, their not concerned about the financial success of the PS3 personally.

My Reasons?

1. Ubisoft has already stated many a time that it is the first title in a new Franchise. The 360 already has a large install base. If it was a one off title maybe PS3 only, but its not going to be, theres going to be more Assassins Creed games if the first one is successful.

You dont build a franchise by limiting who can play it.


2. A handful of other titles from Ubisoft in the past were deemed console exlusives that made their way to other consoles. Splinter cell anyone?

So im guessing their going to make it a timed exclusive to make sony happy so that the PS3 looks more attractive then later rake in the 360 potential.

[Jack B]

Just read another preview of Assassin's Creed for the PS3 on www.gamedaily.com.

I'm really looking forward to this title. The Montreal office of Ubisoft puts out great stuff. Very talented. I'm hopeful this title will deliver.

[Kamalot]

They don't need to, that doesn't mean they're not allowed. People are just curious, it's only natural you'll want to learn more about something you like or are interested in.
I don't believe I ever stated that people shouldn't be allowed to know about the tech behind a game. If I came across that way, I'm sorry.

I am trying to say that people shouldn't need to understand the tech behind a game in order to make a purchase decision. The tech behind a game should not change someone's mind on which game/system to buy. What difference does it make if the clouds in a game are volumetric or not, as long as it looks good and, most important, the game is FUN? :eek:

[Mr.Condescension]

Red Steel is in a different category, and you know that as well as anyone. I don't think I need to list the significant commononalities between the PS3 and Xbox 360 that support the notion that Ubisoft might cross-platform a game on one of these systems in order to expand it's user-base.

I really wouldn't be surprised if Sony felt they had a major hit on their hands and threw whatever money it would take to get an exclusivity contract, but I don't buy the notion that ithe decision would in any way be related to hardware.

I was only refuting the supposed fact that ubisoft never makes exclusives. It's simply untrue. They have made exclusives before and they may continue to do so.

[Mr.Condescension]

I don't know what arrogant bus you got off of, but you sure do live up to your namesake.

If arrogance is admitting that I may have a bias towards hand done animation because it was what I studied in school.....uh...ok. :confused:

[Kamalot]

If arrogance is admitting that I may have a bias towards hand done animation because it was what I studied in school.....uh...ok. :confused:

I call Bullshit.

Before now there was no admission, only opinion stated as fact. So, are you freely admitting that your preference for one type of animation is just that, a preference, instead of a factual superiority?

It is also plainly obvious that your bias towards Sony is clouding your other finer judgments. I've gone back to read through your comments and notice how frequently you fly in to Sony's defense, often with dubious claims. It downright amazes me how dutiful to your masters you are. Unless you are being paid, a distinct possibility, then you are one super-devoted fan.

Sir, I dub you, Sony Fanboy #1.

There is nothing wrong with being a fan of Sony, just stop pretending. Being a fan is a noble cause. You are good at it. People will know that they can always check with Mr.Condescension to get to Sony side of the story, delivered with a condescending, snide remark and an air of superiority.

Run with your strengths! Live free!

[torrefaction]

Sir, I dub you, Sony Fanboy #1.


Borys will be sad.

[Mr.Condescension]

Why would they prefer a game on Blu-Ray? It is an inferior storage medium for gaming. Sure, you can get a crap-ton of data on a Blu-Ray disc, but the data transfer rate is really slow and that means longer load screens. If the game is actually big enough that it won't fit on a DVD even with compression (Condemned is a 9 GB game and fit on a single DVD with short load screens), then they could simply split the game up into separate DVDs, the way RPGs have been splitting their games between CDs for ages. I'd rather spend 30 seconds changing out DVDs once during the life of a game, than have to spend 30 extra seconds on every damn load screen.

Anyway, the reason most people assume this is also going to come out for the X360 is that it was demoed on an X360 at E3 and it was shown at an X360 trade show (in an earlier build). Sony MAY have payed them to release on the PS3 FIRST (or to simply not talk about other consoles yet), but they are definitely developing for both next-gen platforms.

I've been over this whole topic in another thread, and I'd be happy to send you the appropriate links via PM...here's the nutshell version.

1) 12x DVD player reads data on a dual layer disc as 8x or less. A 2x blu-ray drive reads at a constant speed that is comparable with the peak speed on a variable 8x DVD.

2) DVDs read at different speeds on different parts of the disk. Data on the outside is read at the top speed, and data on the inside is read at the minumum speed. Data can't be moved to anywhere you want on the disk because DVDs are burned in a spiral pattern from inside to out. Blu-ray reads at a constant speed, so streamed data is always the same speed no matter hwo much data there is. This allows programmers to code with the expectation of a constant speed, where with DVD they have to code with closer to the minimum speed.

3) Seek times will be faster on blu-ray drives due to the DVD drive having to spin up or down in speed depending on the area of the disk they're accessing.

These 3 factors create this data size vs. speed breakdown:

Game is small on a single layer dvd or blu-ray disk = blu-ray faster

Game is large on a single layer dvd or blu-ray disk(3.5 gigs or close to it) = speed is comparable, or slightly faster on DVD

Game is larger on a dual layer dvd or blu-ray disk (>3.5 gigs) = blu ray is much faster

Feel free to PM me for more details.

[Mr.Condescension]

Anyway, the reason most people assume this is also going to come out for the X360 is that it was demoed on an X360 at E3 and it was shown at an X360 trade show (in an earlier build). Sony MAY have payed them to release on the PS3 FIRST (or to simply not talk about other consoles yet), but they are definitely developing for both next-gen platforms.

Assassin's creed was not running on an xbox 360 at E-3.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24636503

GameSpot News contacted Ubisoft to set the record straight. "Assassin's Creed was being shown on a PC emulating a PlayStation 3," a rep told GameSpot News.

[Mr.Condescension]

As for the guy who was trained as an animator in college, what are you doing now? That's not an insult, but a genuine question. I was trained as an animator in college and I am not doing C.A. for a living. Sucks.

I was trained in hand-drawn animation in school, but my main employment is as network administrator/IT manager at a web development company. I never applied to any gaming studios or animation studios because I prefer to paint now, so I'm working on that instead. I am currently working on a illustration portfolio for freelance work during nights and weekends. It's a difficult business to break into, but I don't dislike the work I do now, and it pays alot better.

[Mr.Condescension]

So, are you freely admitting that your preference for one type of animation is just that, a preference, instead of a factual superiority?

No, I had assumed that most people had the same preference as I do. Yours is the first opinion contrary to mine on the subject that I have heard. I freely admit that perhaps not all people feel that way, and can see how I might be biased on the subject due to my environment and training.

[bean19]

Mr. C,

That Blu-Ray information is such utter bull-shit. You can't actually work in technology. . . Do you mean you sell refrigerators at Best-Buy?


Blu-Ray (PS3): ~23 GB storage*; 9 MB/sec data transfer; 56.88 seconds to load 512 MB of data from a Blu-Ray disc

DVDx8 (PS3): ~7 GB storage; 10.57 MB/sec data transfer; 48.44 seconds to load 512 MB of data from a DVD on PS3.

DVDx12 (X360): ~7 GB storage; 15.85 MB/sec data transfer; 32.3 seconds to load 512 MB of data from a DVD on the X360.

*storage for the Blu-Ray could possibly be twice as high if they use dual layer Blu-Ray discs. I could not find this information in their tech release, but I'm using the lower number as ommission is usually indicative of a smaller feature and games and movies don't even need the 23 GB available so doubling it would be extreme overkill.

Sources: Sony PDF (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/060509ae.pdf), Blu-Ray Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray), Understanding DVD Recording Speeds (http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa4.htm)

Re: seek times - so ridiculous. . . Seek times are milliseconds. . . not tens or hundreds of seconds, but milliseconds. To seriously bring those up is pure idiocy. . . especially in light of the horrible data transfer rates for the Blu-Rayx2 shown above.

You are probably trying to make a point about how the Blu-Ray has a constant data transfer rate as oppossed to DVDs that have a modulating data transfer rate based on where the laser is pointing on the disc (like in the Cotton-Eye-Joe it is fastest on the rings furthest from the center of the DVD). However, if you look at a circle, most of your area is on the outer rings. That's why the above figures are for the AVERAGE data transfer rates on a DVD. For most games, that are less than 5GB, the data transfer rate will actually be faster than this average as they will first write this data to the outer rings (where read time is faster). However, an average is already used to be fair instead of using the maximum.

You can love the PS3 all you want, but don't spread disinformation. I love my 360, I'll love my Wii, and eventually (when it goes down to $400 and MGS 4 or FF XIII) are out, I'll love my PS3, but don't act like Blu-Ray will help games.

Blu-Ray is for playing HD movies and actually works against gaming with seriously long load times (that your stupid seek time milliseconds don't even touch - fucking idiot). I'm pissed off about that, and I'm pissed off that I have to pay an extra $200 for an HD movie player I do not want or need.

So I'll thank you for not inventing bullshit that magically makes the Blu-Ray player less of an apalling consumer nightmare.

[Kamalot]

Yours is the first opinion contrary to mine on the subject that I have heard.Perhaps you should try reading the threads. I'm not the only one here who suggested that hand-animation has its drawbacks. In fact, I think Lord of The Rings used both hand-animation and motion-capture to utilize the strengths of each.

I'll be sure to note that you make broad, sweeping, unchallenged assumptions in your posts.

[Mr.Condescension]

Bean19,

The speeds you listed do not take into account the amount of data on the disk and are also purely hypothetical without doing any actual testing. The math is a straight multiplication and does not take into account what is enumerated below in the text of the link you posted.

Here is a little tidbit using your own article:

The CAV mode spins the disc at a constant RPM throughout the entire writing process. Consequently, the data transfer rate continuously increases as the optical head writes from the inner to outer diameter of the disc. For example, a 5x CAV DVD-RAM recorder begins writing at 2x at the inner diameter of the disc accelerating to 5x by the outer diameter of the disc.

The speeds you listed are for the maximum the drive is capable at its outer edge. The drive must ramp up from its lowest speed at the inside to the highest speed at the outside, which is not included in those calculations in any way shape or form. Essentially those calculations are utter bullshit. Show me actual calculations from a site doing real world testing and that'll be something to look at. Add in to the fact that if the disk is not full you will never get those read speeds and those numbers. In order to get the real numbers you would have to have to account for each % increment a disk was full and how that would affect the read speed, as well as averaging the % of the disk read at the lowest speed, the % read at the next lowest speed, etc, etc, etc, until the last data read at the full speed of the drive.

You are not impressing me with this bullshit data in the least.

However, if you look at a circle, most of your area is on the outer rings.

Now that is something I hadn't thought of, and is interesting to note. I would have to say "most" isn't exactly accurate. Certainly less than 20% of the disk surface would ever be read at the highest speed, and then only if the data even got that far when written.

That's why the above figures are for the AVERAGE data transfer rates on a DVD.

Please go back and read the math on the table you're quoting again and notice that it is giving you the average access at the top speed of the drive only, not a true average. Those are average at peak speed only, which as we've covered, does not account for much of the disk area.

For most games, that are less than 5GB, the data transfer rate will actually be faster than this average as they will first write this data to the outer rings (where read time is faster).

Well, take into consideration that DVD-5s in an xbox 360 are 3.5 gigs max and in a DVD-9 they are 7 gigs max. Let's not spread misinformation. And before you ask, the space is taken up by security supposedly.

Also note that your own article again states that you cannot "first write this data to the outer rings" since DVDs must begin writing from the inside. This is not a choice..it is a limitation of the technology, and there is absolutely no way around it. To get that 12x speed on a 12x drive you must come as close as possible to the full contents of the DVD (3.5 gigs)and no more.

Let's also add in here again that the Xbox 360's DVD drive cannot read a DVD-9 at 12x. It reads it at a maximum rate of 8x.

You can love the PS3 all you want, but don't spread disinformation.

I haven't. In fact, you unwittingly have spread disinformation by misinterpreting your own sources. It makes me sad to think that I had to waste so much time correcting your mistakes in interpretation when the final result is the same as I had previously noted.

For anything other than a nearly full DVD-5 the read speeds are not faster than blu-ray, and for anything over 3.5 gigs the 2x blu-ray drive reads faster than a 12x DVD drive.

[bean19]

The speeds you listed are for the maximum the drive is capable at its outer edge.

Not true, as stated and as can be learned from the sources, that is the average.

Imagine a pizza and you put a ceral bowl over the center of the pizza. Is more of the pizza inside or outside of the pizza bowl?

That's why the average speed for DVDs is so very near the maximum speed (for a DVDx12 the maximum is somewhere around 16-17 MB/sec). Because the largest portions of the "pizza" are also the furthest out on the DVD and are the largest.

Sure, the innermost part would be as low as ~8 MB/sec, but even that is only 1 MB/sec slower than the Blu-Rayx2. Still, the numbers above are already the averages. I'm not going to adjust them again to lower the numbers further.

And of course they can write the games to the outer rings. I'm not even going to start discussing that because it is as ridiculous of an argument as seek times. I'll just let you continue with it and look like more of a jackass. People at Evil Avatar are tech savy and disinformation like this will only make you look the fool.

Are you a shill? He has to be a fucking shill right?

I think people have responded to you so far because you have a new handle and they are hoping you aren't a complete fucking idiot, but you have lost all credibility with me with this crap.

[Kamalot]

Are you a shill? He has to be a fucking shill right?That would explain a good many things.

[bean19]

For anything other than a nearly full DVD-5 the read speeds are not faster than blu-ray, and for anything over 3.5 gigs the 2x blu-ray drive reads faster than a 12x DVD drive.

Even the slowest inner-ring on a DVD-9 is only the slightest bit slower than a BRx2's constant rate. The Blu-Ray is a fucking turtle and there is no getting around that through obsfucation and disinformation.

This shows how FUTURE Blu-Ray devices will potentially be awesome, but the only important dot for those of us interested in buying a PS3 is the 2nd one. . . See the one way down there next to the red line that is the minimum speed of the DVDx12.

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/5399/12xdvdvsbdrs0cg.png

[Jack B]

Mr. C,

That Blu-Ray information is such utter bull-shit. You can't actually work in technology. . . Do you mean you sell refrigerators at Best-Buy?


Blu-Ray (PS3): ~23 GB storage*; 9 MB/sec data transfer; 56.88 seconds to load 512 MB of data from a Blu-Ray disc

DVDx8 (PS3): ~7 GB storage; 10.57 MB/sec data transfer; 48.44 seconds to load 512 MB of data from a DVD on PS3.

DVDx12 (X360): ~7 GB storage; 15.85 MB/sec data transfer; 32.3 seconds to load 512 MB of data from a DVD on the X360.

*storage for the Blu-Ray could possibly be twice as high if they use dual layer Blu-Ray discs. I could not find this information in their tech release, but I'm using the lower number as ommission is usually indicative of a smaller feature and games and movies don't even need the 23 GB available so doubling it would be extreme overkill.

Sources: Sony PDF (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/060509ae.pdf), Blu-Ray Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray), Understanding DVD Recording Speeds (http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa4.htm)

Re: seek times - so ridiculous. . . Seek times are milliseconds. . . not tens or hundreds of seconds, but milliseconds. To seriously bring those up is pure idiocy. . . especially in light of the horrible data transfer rates for the Blu-Rayx2 shown above.

You are probably trying to make a point about how the Blu-Ray has a constant data transfer rate as oppossed to DVDs that have a modulating data transfer rate based on where the laser is pointing on the disc (like in the Cotton-Eye-Joe it is fastest on the rings furthest from the center of the DVD). However, if you look at a circle, most of your area is on the outer rings. That's why the above figures are for the AVERAGE data transfer rates on a DVD. For most games, that are less than 5GB, the data transfer rate will actually be faster than this average as they will first write this data to the outer rings (where read time is faster). However, an average is already used to be fair instead of using the maximum.

You can love the PS3 all you want, but don't spread disinformation. I love my 360, I'll love my Wii, and eventually (when it goes down to $400 and MGS 4 or FF XIII) are out, I'll love my PS3, but don't act like Blu-Ray will help games.

Blu-Ray is for playing HD movies and actually works against gaming with seriously long load times (that your stupid seek time milliseconds don't even touch - fucking idiot). I'm pissed off about that, and I'm pissed off that I have to pay an extra $200 for an HD movie player I do not want or need.

So I'll thank you for not inventing bullshit that magically makes the Blu-Ray player less of an apalling consumer nightmare.

Bean19,

If you're correct in this post, that's really interesting. I had seen in some other posts (can't remember where and who) about the Blu-Ray's streaming faster.

It sounds like it's actually the opposite.

[Jack B]

Even the slowest inner-ring on a DVD-9 is only the slightest bit slower than a BRx2's constant rate. The Blu-Ray is a fucking turtle and there is no getting around that through obsfucation and disinformation.

This shows how FUTURE Blu-Ray devices will potentially be awesome, but the only important dot for those of us interested in buying a PS3 is the 2nd one. . . See the one way down there next to the red line that is the minimum speed of the DVDx12.

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/5399/12xdvdvsbdrs0cg.png

I've posted before that Sony would likely include the weakest of the standalone Blu-Ray players in the PS3 to keep costs down.

Most buying a PS3 wouldn't know the difference and the OEM's selling stand alone players would then have a differentiator to justify the higher price of the standalone Blu-Ray players....

That looks to be the plan.

[Mr.Condescension]

Not true, as stated and as can be learned from the sources, that is the average.

Completely incorrect. Do the math yourself. It's a straight conversion of the peak data transfer rate at the highest speed of the drive. It takes no account for the majority of the disk that doesn't get read at the highest speed. Read the damn fine print. Please.

Imagine a pizza and you put a ceral bowl over the center of the pizza. Is more of the pizza inside or outside of the pizza bowl?

It all depends on the size of the cereal bowl and the size of the pizza. You see that analogy presupposes that the majority of the radius of the disk gets the 12x read speed. Yes, that 1/12 of the distance from the center of the disk covers more area than any of the other parts (geometry is neat), but it does not cover an area that is as large as you think it does. Here is a little math class:

I don't know the unicode for it, so here goes. 3.14*radius(squared). The article states that a 5x drive has to go through phases of 1x, 2x, etc. before reaching 12x at the outside of the disc.

So, given 12x has to go through 12 stages of speeds, all equivalent in distance the laser moves (radius), here is the math:

1-(3.14*11*11)/(3.14*12*12) = .15972

So, the portion of the disc area that gets read on a full DVD at the full transfer speed is only 15.972 percent.

15.972% is not "most" or anything close to it. That is why your "average" transfer numbers are completely wrong.

And of course they can write the games to the outer rings.


Again, wrong. You cannot choose where the data track begins. As your article clearly states, all writes to a DVD begin at the center and move outwards. You can choose what data goes where, but you cannot choose to author a videogame on the outside edge.

I'm sorry, but you don't have a clue how this technology actually works.

[bean19]

Jack B - Actually, they are putting the money down and getting the most advanced Blu-Ray players in existence into the PS3's. The x3, x4, etc. models are just theoretical. They don't actually exist yet. So they aren't being skimpy with the x2. . . of course, you NEED x1.5 in order to stream enough data to play HD movies, so they kinda had to or they'd clearly have nothing to sell.

[Jack B]

Jack B - Actually, they are putting the money down and getting the most advanced Blu-Ray players in existence into the PS3's. The x3, x4, etc. models are just theoretical. They don't actually exist yet. So they aren't being skimpy with the x2. . . of course, you NEED x1.5 in order to stream enough data to play HD movies, so they kinda had to or they'd clearly have nothing to sell.

Oh, thanks. Let me re-state then. I believe Sony will keep the minimum in the PS3 as better, faster Blu-Ray drives become available to give a differentiator for the stand alone units and to keep costs down if possible.

[bean19]

Mr. C,

It is an exponential increase that begins at about half the fastest speed. . . I'd have to go get a tech manual to do the math for you.

However, I'm sure the people who aren't Sony shills will just trust the sources.

Re: using the outer rings:

THEY CAN JUST ENTER "EMPTY" DATA TO GET TO THE OUTER RINGS.

You are so ridiculously wrong and you just keep shoveling the bullshit out and insisting it's true. You are like one of those whores on a day-time television show that continually insists that her crazy bat-shit insane reasoning supports her fucked up lifestyle.

Find a new handle or shut the fuck up. No one is going to believe one fucking word from you anymore.

[Mr.Condescension]

Even the slowest inner-ring on a DVD-9 is only the slightest bit slower than a BRx2's constant rate

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4716/dvdvsbdrs1af.png

Hopefully this image will help you understand how DVDs actually work vs. blu-ray. The image you're linking assumes that the drive reads each part of the disk at the full 12x. In reality it reads each part of the disk at different speeds. The way you get to the actual speed of the drive is by averaging the speed at each area of the disk with the amount of disk area each place takes up. The drive only spends 15% of its time at the full 12x or 8x on a dual layer disk.

Here is the quote for good measure:

the advertised read speed is taken from the maximum, consequently a DVD drives maximum read speed is almost never realized.

[Mr.Condescension]

Re: using the outer rings:

THEY CAN JUST ENTER "EMPTY" DATA TO GET TO THE OUTER RINGS.


Sure, they can use up space on the disc, but that limits the size of the data on the disc. How do you propose to do that with a 3.5 gig game on a DVD-5? Or writing Oblivion to a DVD-9...since it's 5 Gigs, you'd only have 1 Gig on each layer to write dummy data to, and you would automatically have slowed the drive down to 8x maximum in order to read from the Dual Layer disc.

[bean19]

Sure, they can use up space on the disc, but that limits the size of the data on the disc. How do you propose to do that with a 3.5 gig game on a DVD-5? Or writing Oblivion to a DVD-9...since it's 5 Gigs, you'd only have 1 Gig on each layer to write dummy data to, and you would automatically have slowed the drive down to 8x maximum in order to read from the Dual Layer disc.

So much misinformation.

1. Why would you use that graph that compares DVDx12 to BRx12 when BRx12 doesn't exist?

2. Why do you avoid addressing the primary fact that even the slowest speed on a DVD-12 playing a DVD-9 (which is what the X360 plays) is only slightly slower than the constant speed of a BRx2?

3. Why would you talk about wasting disc space when discussing a method that is meant to waste disc space?

This is a website with really bright readers. You can't do this stuff and expect to not be laughed out of town. All you've proven by keeping this up is that you are a dumbass instead of a shill. A shill would be bright enough not to make so many mistakes.

[Mr.Condescension]

1. Why would you use that graph that compares DVDx12 to BRx12 when BRx12 doesn't exist?

Did you even look at the graph? It compares the read speed of DVDs at all speeds from 1x to 12x versus the read speeds of blu-ray at 1x to 12x. You're so convinced you're right that you don't even read the articles you yourself are linking. You don't actually read the graphs, and you can't be bothered to actually do the math on your own. You can't even tell when your own links are working against your argument because you're so blinded by your conclusions.

2. Why do you avoid addressing the primary fact that even the slowest speed on a DVD-12 playing a DVD-9 (which is what the X360 plays) is only slightly slower than the constant speed of a BRx2?

Because you are working off of a completely flawed assumption: that 12x DVD drives read data off all DVD media types at the same speed. It is completely false. A 12x DVD drive reads a DVD-9 disk at 8x, which you will note on the graph has the maximum speed just barely above the blu-ray 2x and has the minimum speed WAY BELOW the 2x blu-ray. The gamespot article clearly states that the maximum speed is rarely ever met in use, and I proved that only 15% of the total disc area can reach that speed with very simple math. Just look at the graph at the 8x position and you will clearly see that the blu-ray player is faster at reading DVD-9 discs. You are the one linking these articles. I am just reading them to you.

3. Why would you talk about wasting disc space when discussing a method that is meant to waste disc space?

I mention it because in order to purposely waste that space it limits the amount of actual game data your game can take up on the disc. How do you propose to fit HALO3 on a DVD-5 with dummy data taking up room that the game needs? Do you then put HALO3 on a DVD-9? If you did it would run even slower than if you didn't use any dummy data because the DVD player plays DVD-9s at only 8x. It is a key problem with that practice. You can only use dummy data if your game doesn't need that room, which will only be possible with very small games. Games that are smaller than you are accustomed to playing. HALO2 took up an entire DVD-5, I believe.

[bean19]

Did you even look at the graph? It compares the read speed of DVDs at all speeds from 1x to 12x versus the read speeds of blu-ray at 1x to 12x.

However, the PS3 uses the BRx2 - faster versions of BR players don't even exist yet. Thus while that graph shows how BR can potentially have great transfer rates as the hardware is improved in years to come, it has NOTHING to do with the current comparison between the BRx2 and the DVDx12.

It is deceptive.



Because you are working off of a completely flawed assumption: that 12x DVD drives read data off all DVD media types at the same speed. It is completely false.

No. Clearly I am very aware that DVDs read faster on the outer rim than they do on the inner and have been providing their average data transfer rate throughout.

You just can't deal with this and are acting all retarded over it in order to try to take the focus away from the fact that the BRx2 in the PS3 is still slow as a fucking turtle.

Is that your strategey? To act like a jackass about this in order to try and obsfuscate negative information about the Blu-Ray player.

I mention it because in order to purposely waste that space it limits the amount of actual game data your game can take up on the disc.

But you wouldn't use empty data if you needed the space. . . the whole reason for using "empty" data is to put the game files on the outer rims of DVDs.

How can you really be this stupid? Are you just playing a game now?

[Mr.Condescension]

However, the PS3 uses the BRx2 - faster versions of BR players don't even exist yet. Thus while that graph shows how BR can potentially have great transfer rates as the hardware is improved in years to come, it has NOTHING to do with the current comparison between the BRx2 and the DVDx12.

It is deceptive.

It is not deceptive. You're just mis-reading it. Print the graph out and draw 3 lines across it. One at the 8x DVD maximum (green), one at the 8x DVD minimum (red) and one at the blu-ray 2x (blue). You will plainly see that the blue line is far, far above the red, and barely below the green.


No. Clearly I am very aware that DVDs read faster on the outer rim than they do on the inner and have been providing their average data transfer rate throughout.

You just can't deal with this and just and are acting all retarded over it.

No, you still don't get what i mean. You know how a DVD burner that is listed as 4x can burn a DVD-R at 4x but a DVD-RW at only 2.4x? That principle applies across reading and writing on all the DVD disc types. A 12x DVD player reads a single-layer DVD at 12x, but if you actually look at the specs it can only read a dual-layer DVD at 8x. It's on the box.

The Xbox 360 does not read DVD-9 disks at 12x EVER. It can't. It reads them at 8x just like other DVD players.


But you wouldn't use empty data if you needed the space. . . the whole reason for using "empty" data is to put the game files on the outer rims of DVDs.

I completely agree with this...you can make your game data read faster only if you don't need the space. If you need the space (3.5 gigs on an Xbox 360 DVD-5) then you can't use this dummy data strategy and your disc will only use the full drive speed the usual 15% of the time. Most games published on the 360 use most of a DVD-5s data area or have to run a DVD-9, which is a slower medium in the DVD drive. So, yes you can use this trick, only if your game is very small, which isn't usually the case.

[Mr.Condescension]

bean19,

Here's another example: you stated that the blu-ray has a 9MB/s data transfer.

Here is an example of a DVD actual read speed in testing:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=64

The samsung sd612 12x dvd drive (not the same as the toshiba-samsung dvd drive in the xbox360) gets about 5x at the beginning of the disc, ~8.5x on average, ~12x at the end of the disc...and sustained is ~8x (at least on plextor's 12x dvd)

That's all for single layer DVD, not dual-layer DVD. Note that the read speed is slower on this 12x DVD than the blu-ray speed you yourself posted.

Here's another interesting link:

http://www.techfreaks.org/reviews/plex708a.shtml

This one is only related in that is says:

We also see the Lite-On drive performing quite a bit slower than it did in the single-layer test, and this is because reading of dual-layer DVDs is generally a lot slower than reading of single-layer DVDs.

I can find more examples if you like.

edit: Here is another:

http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/product_de...onomy_id=43-92

Read Speed DVD-ROM (Single Layer) Max. 16x
Read Speed DVD-ROM (Dual Layer) Max. 12x

Notice the Dual Layer disc runs slower than the Single Layer Disc.

One more:

http://www.digit-life.com/news.html?06/16/17

Specifications:

Reading
BD-ROM (SL) 4.8x max.
BD-ROM (DL) 4x max.
BD-R (SL) 4.8x max.
BD-RE (SL) 2x CLV
DVD-ROM (Single/Dual) 16x/8x max.
DVD-R/RW/ 10x/10x/8x max
DVD-RAM 2x, 3x, 5x PCAV
DVD-Video (CSS) 8x max. (Single/Dual Layer)
DVD+R/+RW/DL 10x/10x/8x max.
CD-R/RW/ROM 40x/40x/40x max.
CD-DA (DAE) 40x max.
Writing
BD-R (SL) 2x, 4x CLV
BD-RE (SL) 2x CLV
DVD-R 2x, 4x CLV, 8x, 12x PCAV
DVD-R Dual Layer 2x, 4x CLV
DVD-RW 1x, 2x, 4x, 6x CLV
DVD-RAM 2x, 3x ZCLV, 5x PCAV
DVD+R 2.4x, 4x CLV, 8x ZCLV, 12x PCAV
DVD+R DL 2.4x, 4x CLV
DVD+RW 2.4x, 4x, 6x, 8x ZCLV
CD-R 4x, 8x CLV
CD-RW 4x, 8x, 10x CLV

[bean19]

The Xbox 360 does not read DVD-9 disks at 12x EVER.

Can you find a source for this rumor outside Sony forums? I actually tried to find this and couldn't find it anywhere, which means that it is most probably made up. While you wouldn't expect this information in ads, I would expect to be able to find it in DVD FAQs or wikis. No source could substantiate this and I assume it is a fairly new rumor because they also don't go to the trouble to deny it.

Believe it or not the original numbers ARE average read times from DVD benchmarks. The actual maximum data transfer rate from a DVDx12 is 16.62 MB/sec, which is quite a bit higher than the average used above.

Also, if you wanted to compare DVDx12 and DVDx8 to BRx2, then why not use a graph that does this instead of one that has such inflated, false numbers? And if you are going to use such a deceptive graph, why didn't you point out the valid information?

No one is going to believe you because you are deceptive, you use spin, you don't source, and you are often blatantly incorrect and inconsistent. You are what I hate most in flamey forum trolls and I hope that people read this thread and see that you have no credibility whatsoever.

[Mr.Condescension]

Can you find a source for this rumor outside Sony forums?

All DVD players run exactly like this. Microsoft did not invent a new type of DVD player for their Xbox 360. It uses a standard drive made by another company, and it will run Dual Layer discs slower than single layer just like every other DVD player on the planet. What sort of news post are you looking for? "This just in: DVD players working as designed!"

It's on the xbox forums as well, btw: http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=447657&page=5

Also, if you wanted to compare DVDx12 and DVDx8 to BRx2, then why not use a graph that does this instead of one that has such inflated, false numbers? And if you are going to use such a deceptive graph, why didn't you point out the valid information?

The graph is not deceptive in any way. It displays all speeds for both types of drives from 1x to 12x. You can compare any speed DVD drive you want to any speed blu-ray drive using that graph.

No one is going to believe you because you are deceptive, you use spin, you don't source, and you are often blatantly incorrect and inconsistent. You are what I hate most in flamey forum trolls and I hope that people read this thread and see that you have no credibility whatsoever.

I have not deceived anyone, or used spin of any kind in this debate. I have stated the plain facts, and you have refused to believe them, and refused to read the articles I have posted, and even refused to read the fine print on your own sources. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the facts are there, and I have presented them to you with sources for every statement.

You can call me all the names you want, but it doesn't make my argument any worse. The facts are exactly as I have presented them.

[bean19]

I looked into this more and you are wrong about DVD players going slower for dual-layer DVD-9 discs. They are slower in reading DVD-R discs, but DVD-ROM (read-only discs like those that games and movies are printed to) are read at the same speed whether or not they are single or dual-layer.

An Example (http://pioneer.eu/eur/product_detail.jsp?product_id=12285&taxonomy_id=45-104)

Read Speed DVD-ROM (Single Layer) Max. 8x CAV (11.08 MB/sec)

Read Speed DVD-ROM (Dual Layer) Max. 8x CAV (11.08 MB/sec)

Read Speed DVD-R, DVD-R Dual Layer, DVD-RW Max. 8x CAV (11.08 MB/sec), Max. 6x CAV (8.31 MB/sec), Max. 6x CAV (8.31 MB/sec)

Don't get your information from the Sony and Xbox forums. You'll get tons of bullshit like what you just posted and defended so vehemently, and then you'll be WRONG.

Also, regarding CAV, I've already explained to you how an average is used from doing benchmarks on a DVDx12 to gain the above average data transfer rate. The link you showed gave the average between the lowest and the highest speeds from a test on a single device. That test places undue emphasis on the CAV aspect of the device rather than testing the average speed overall of transferring all of the information from a DVD to a computer. What this means is that most of your data is stored on the larger/faster exterior rings of a DVD, thus these bits of data that are transferred more quickly are much more numerous than those that are closer to the interior rings of the DVD. If you simply ran tests from quick bursts of reads, then you will get results like those shown in your article, but if you test the data transfer rate throughout an entire DVD, you will get results like the ones I used in the calculations up top.

Still, this whole "DVD-R is slower on dual layer" bullshit was really interesting and new spin. I actually had to do some new research to figure out why it was bullshit. Kudos for that much at least. Your bullshit skills are l337.

[bean19]

The graph is not deceptive in any way. It displays all speeds for both types of drives from 1x to 12x. You can compare any speed DVD drive you want to any speed blu-ray drive using that graph.

Except that every BR player above BRx2 is theoretical, and you do not direct the reader to this fact.

Misleading is a form of deception.

[Dracula-X]

I looked into this more and you are wrong about DVD players going slower for dual-layer DVD-9 discs. They are slower in reading DVD-R discs, but DVD-ROM (read-only discs like those that games and movies are printed to) are read at the same speed whether or not they are single or dual-layer.

An Example (http://pioneer.eu/eur/product_detail.jsp?product_id=12285&taxonomy_id=45-104)
That may be a characteristic of blu-ray drives, which the example you link to actually is. Have you looked at the other DVD drives in the pioneer lineup on that same site? They go something like this:Read Speed DVD-ROM (Single Layer) Max. 16x CAV (22.16 MB/sec)

Read Speed DVD-ROM (Dual Layer) Max. 12x CAV (16.62 MB/sec)

Your earlier trivialization of seek times is also questionable.

An average seek on a modern drive can take 150ms average (some are 180ms, some in excess of 200ms), not including read latency. These delays accumulate depending on the number of reads, the quality of the laser and the condition of the disc. When it comes to a game there is just about never an optimal situation where you can store all vital game assets on the outer tracks. If I have a game with assets scattered throughout the disc and I need to load 40 textures on a 12x CAV drive (not dual layer, it gets worse there), an average seek/read latency of 200ms x 40 means I've lost 8 seconds just looking for things. This of course is a worst-case type scenario but it illustrates how seeks (something Microsoft themselves recommends keeping to a bare minimum for this very reason) can add up significantly. Developers minimize these penalties by often duplicating particular assets on the disc multiple times (simplified example, a same texture that appears on multiple levels), and reading things collectively in one go, as this is often more cost effective than trying to force your most referenced assets on the outer tracks. This is also obviously dependent on the type of game and streaming methods gets to be another issue. The reality is you can reference DVD graphs all day but when it comes to games you will *never* get the optimal throughput.

[Mr.Condescension]

I looked into this more and you are wrong about DVD players going slower for dual-layer DVD-9 discs. They are slower in reading DVD-R discs, but DVD-ROM (read-only discs like those that games and movies are printed to) are read at the same speed whether or not they are single or dual-layer.

An Example (http://pioneer.eu/eur/product_detail.jsp?product_id=12285&taxonomy_id=45-104)

That is a blu-ray player, bro. DVD players play dual layer DVDs slower. It doesn't matter if they're DVD-R or not. Go ahead and actually follow the links to all the examples I've already posted above.

Your whole paragraph about CAV is completely wrong as well. The benchmark tests prove that your original assertions about the speed of DVD reads is wrong. DVDs only hit their highest speed on a fraction of the disc area, and the speeds you posted are simple multiplications of the highest speed on a DVD player.

I'm sorry that you can't come to grips with this.

[Mr.Condescension]

Except that every BR player above BRx2 is theoretical, and you do not direct the reader to this fact.

Misleading is a form of deception.

Well gosh! It's a good thing I never compared anything to a blu-ray drive faster than x2. x2 is all I've used or asked you to look at. I've mislead no one. It's not my fault you can't read a graph.

[Mr.Condescension]

Some good stuff...

Oh, looks like you already covered that one. My bad. hehe