The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The point of this topic is to discuss Nintendo’s obsession with loading times and whether it is justified.
As we all know, Nintendo decided to opt for loading times over cost and storage on the N64. This is the only reason I can see for having large, bulky, expensive cartridges with limited capacity. As everyone all knows this was also one of the main reason why the N64 lost to the PlayStation.
So, was this justified? Well, personally I think not, but a lot of people argue. One of the main and sometimes only points my Ninty friends say about the PSone is they hate the loading times. It spoils the game and they prefer the N64 with no loading times. In my opinion this is just desperately seeking an argument, but maybe they have a point. I must say one of the best things I enjoyed about owning an N64 (yes, I had one and yes, I enjoyed it). The thing was, some of the loading times on the PSone were virtually unnoticeable. For example, I was amazed at the loading of GT and GT2 considering what huge games they are. Similarly, the loading of GT3 is virtually non-existent. On the other hand, some of the loading times on the two Sony consoles are atrocious: Driver, TimeSplitters and Quake 3 anyone? Now, I admit this does spoil the game a little bit but does it really warrant the drastic action of keeping cartridges? After all, this is what caused the rift between Square and Nintendo.
The truth is, loading times are a fact of life, and Nintendo are just going to have to live with it.
Now, despite the disaster with Square, Nintendo still haven’t learnt their lesson and have gone and done it again, but this time is goodbye GamePaks and hello Optical Discs. Now, the problem is slightly rectified with the larger storage but they’re still a third of the PS2’s 4.3gb at 1.5gb. At least this is better than the original 4% of the PSone’s CDs. Yes, that’s a twenty-fifth.
I’ve been trying to research the GC’s optical discs, and the information’s surprisingly sparse, so here’s what I’ve found out: The discs are basically DVDs with a few modifications, so there’s no change there. The difference is they are only 8cm in diameter, which means not only are they smaller they are cheaper. Personally I don’t see the point but there you go. Apparently this is supposed to decrease loading times because the laser has less distance to travel but PS2 developers could just use 8cm of the DVD instead. The discs will come in standard DVD cases which also means you can fit two in one box, but I still fail to see the point. One more thing about the Optical discs: For the first time ever Nintendo will be able to provide decent sound and FMV onto a game. This was previously impossible because of the limited capacity.
Now, these brand spanking new optical discs may have very quick loading but I don’t see anything special about them. As far as I am aware all DVDs are dead quick to load. Both Dead or Alive 2 and the OPS2 DVD cover discs are insanely quick, even the demos. I think that this is because there is a higher transfer speed on DVDs because the tracks are closer together and a DVD laser can read much quicker. Slow loading times on the PS2 CDs are also to become a thing of the past when developers start efficiently using the PS2’s resources and 48x CD-ROM drive.
OK, to sum up: The optical discs are smaller, both in size and capacity, cheaper and faster to load (allegedly). DVDs are much larger, both in size and capacity, a little more expensive and just as quick to load (probably). So what has Nintendo gained from these discs? As far as I can see, nothing. They are cheaper but you need more. They are quicker to load but that needs proving and personally I doubt it. They look nicer – wow. That’s not strictly true though. These discs are impossible to copy, so all you would-be pirates out there will have to find someone else to target.
But that’s what they said about GD-ROMs, isn’t it?
As we all know, Nintendo decided to opt for loading times over cost and storage on the N64. This is the only reason I can see for having large, bulky, expensive cartridges with limited capacity. As everyone all knows this was also one of the main reason why the N64 lost to the PlayStation.
So, was this justified? Well, personally I think not, but a lot of people argue. One of the main and sometimes only points my Ninty friends say about the PSone is they hate the loading times. It spoils the game and they prefer the N64 with no loading times. In my opinion this is just desperately seeking an argument, but maybe they have a point. I must say one of the best things I enjoyed about owning an N64 (yes, I had one and yes, I enjoyed it). The thing was, some of the loading times on the PSone were virtually unnoticeable. For example, I was amazed at the loading of GT and GT2 considering what huge games they are. Similarly, the loading of GT3 is virtually non-existent. On the other hand, some of the loading times on the two Sony consoles are atrocious: Driver, TimeSplitters and Quake 3 anyone? Now, I admit this does spoil the game a little bit but does it really warrant the drastic action of keeping cartridges? After all, this is what caused the rift between Square and Nintendo.
The truth is, loading times are a fact of life, and Nintendo are just going to have to live with it.
Now, despite the disaster with Square, Nintendo still haven’t learnt their lesson and have gone and done it again, but this time is goodbye GamePaks and hello Optical Discs. Now, the problem is slightly rectified with the larger storage but they’re still a third of the PS2’s 4.3gb at 1.5gb. At least this is better than the original 4% of the PSone’s CDs. Yes, that’s a twenty-fifth.
I’ve been trying to research the GC’s optical discs, and the information’s surprisingly sparse, so here’s what I’ve found out: The discs are basically DVDs with a few modifications, so there’s no change there. The difference is they are only 8cm in diameter, which means not only are they smaller they are cheaper. Personally I don’t see the point but there you go. Apparently this is supposed to decrease loading times because the laser has less distance to travel but PS2 developers could just use 8cm of the DVD instead. The discs will come in standard DVD cases which also means you can fit two in one box, but I still fail to see the point. One more thing about the Optical discs: For the first time ever Nintendo will be able to provide decent sound and FMV onto a game. This was previously impossible because of the limited capacity.
Now, these brand spanking new optical discs may have very quick loading but I don’t see anything special about them. As far as I am aware all DVDs are dead quick to load. Both Dead or Alive 2 and the OPS2 DVD cover discs are insanely quick, even the demos. I think that this is because there is a higher transfer speed on DVDs because the tracks are closer together and a DVD laser can read much quicker. Slow loading times on the PS2 CDs are also to become a thing of the past when developers start efficiently using the PS2’s resources and 48x CD-ROM drive.
OK, to sum up: The optical discs are smaller, both in size and capacity, cheaper and faster to load (allegedly). DVDs are much larger, both in size and capacity, a little more expensive and just as quick to load (probably). So what has Nintendo gained from these discs? As far as I can see, nothing. They are cheaper but you need more. They are quicker to load but that needs proving and personally I doubt it. They look nicer – wow. That’s not strictly true though. These discs are impossible to copy, so all you would-be pirates out there will have to find someone else to target.
But that’s what they said about GD-ROMs, isn’t it?
Page:
S=Nk was so cool! Knucles on Sonic 2 kicked behind!
Turbonutter wrote:
> That's not swapping though.
i was refering to dringos coment (that I quoted in my message!). He was talking about action replay cart on cart style... like Sonic and knuckles!
Sonic
> That's not swapping though.
i was refering to dringos coment (that I quoted in my message!). He was talking about action replay cart on cart style... like Sonic and knuckles!
Sonic
That's not swapping though.
Dringo wrote:
> Or action replay style 1 ontop of another.
Sonic and Knucles!!!! Get the s+kn cart i your MD. Put in any other sonic game on top. Play as knuckles:):):)
Sonic
> Or action replay style 1 ontop of another.
Sonic and Knucles!!!! Get the s+kn cart i your MD. Put in any other sonic game on top. Play as knuckles:):):)
Sonic
Or action replay style 1 ontop of another.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Because the cartridge becomes part of the console I thought it might
> crash it, that's why. I don't think it was possible on the Mega
> Drive.
Not on any other console except the 64 is cart swapping possible... thanks to the mem cards
Sonic
> Because the cartridge becomes part of the console I thought it might
> crash it, that's why. I don't think it was possible on the Mega
> Drive.
Not on any other console except the 64 is cart swapping possible... thanks to the mem cards
Sonic
Because the cartridge becomes part of the console I thought it might crash it, that's why. I don't think it was possible on the Mega Drive.
shaneo wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I don't think it's possible to have a 2
> cart Nintendo game.
Why not?
In fact you can... like Banjo Tooie and Banjo Kazookie. All you need is for the end of one cart to save a small file onto a memory card that tells the second cart that you have completed the first one. Exactly what happens on CD games.
Had there been no memory cards on the 64 then this would not be possible.
Anyway, the carts cost so much that it would be £100 for a 2 cart game!
Sonic
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I don't think it's possible to have a 2
> cart Nintendo game.
Why not?
In fact you can... like Banjo Tooie and Banjo Kazookie. All you need is for the end of one cart to save a small file onto a memory card that tells the second cart that you have completed the first one. Exactly what happens on CD games.
Had there been no memory cards on the 64 then this would not be possible.
Anyway, the carts cost so much that it would be £100 for a 2 cart game!
Sonic
Turbonutter wrote:
> I don't think it's possible to have a 2 cart Nintendo game.
Why not?
> I don't think it's possible to have a 2 cart Nintendo game.
Why not?
Well, they said that you couldn't pirate GD ROMS, didn't they?
Page: