The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
DRiver2 was worth the wait for loading though.
Agreed. Driver was one of the worst offenders. Too many textures.
Just because the discs cost less doesn't neccesarily mean that they will be sold at a lower price than PS2 games. Personally I don't care much about loading times or what disc/cartridge games are on as long as they are good but the loading times on Driver 2 were terrible.
About 3 ODs = 1 DVD
That means the cost 3 times as much. It all balances out. If anything, ODs cost more per MB as they are new technology.
That means the cost 3 times as much. It all balances out. If anything, ODs cost more per MB as they are new technology.
Most of the space is usually taken up by FMV sequences so it diesnt really change the size of the game.
turbonutter wrote:
> And Sony will be able to make huger games with 4.3gb of space.
Sony... make games hahahahaha
I bet you they won't any money and if Nitnendo want they can have two discs that are really cheap!
> And Sony will be able to make huger games with 4.3gb of space.
Sony... make games hahahahaha
I bet you they won't any money and if Nitnendo want they can have two discs that are really cheap!
They can no PS2 games yet can fill one they are also cheap so we can have more than 1!
aswell as smaller console, little loading and hard to pirate as it will cost a lot to do so!
aswell as smaller console, little loading and hard to pirate as it will cost a lot to do so!
And Sony will be able to make huger games with 4.3gb of space.
Okay okay, even if Zelda was 32MB it was still a huge game. I'm sure Nintendo will be able to make huge games with the 1.5GB space.
Also you would never fit a game into a DVD
Second i prefer listening to Nintendo music to Playstation sounds it would be good if it had good music!
finally we can do FMV! Resident Evil 2
Second i prefer listening to Nintendo music to Playstation sounds it would be good if it had good music!
finally we can do FMV! Resident Evil 2
Page: