The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
erm no no no no no it is definatly hand on heart 256 mbit not mb!
Zelda was definitely 32mb.
The reason they could fit them on was they had crap sound and no FMV. Agreed, 1.5gb is alot but think of it like this. You still won't be able to get the same size games on a OD than a DVD.
When the PSone was launched, everyone said "650mb is LOADS! You'll never use all that" but here we are with FF8 spanning 4 discs!
The reason they could fit them on was they had crap sound and no FMV. Agreed, 1.5gb is alot but think of it like this. You still won't be able to get the same size games on a OD than a DVD.
When the PSone was launched, everyone said "650mb is LOADS! You'll never use all that" but here we are with FF8 spanning 4 discs!
turbonutter wrote:
> But you will be able to pirate them in the end just as you can
> pirate GD-ROM discs.
Zelda is 32mb.
Dring smacks head erm yes turbonutter 32mb (LOL)
and the optical disc has special little holes in the discs and if they don't have them the GC won't read the discs.
> But you will be able to pirate them in the end just as you can
> pirate GD-ROM discs.
Zelda is 32mb.
Dring smacks head erm yes turbonutter 32mb (LOL)
and the optical disc has special little holes in the discs and if they don't have them the GC won't read the discs.
dunno? as Turbonutter... there is plenty of space for games on and optical disc!!
turbonutter wrote:
> But you will be able to pirate them in the end just as you can
> pirate GD-ROM discs.
Zelda is 32mb.
Cant be, considering Resi evil 2 was 512MB.
> But you will be able to pirate them in the end just as you can
> pirate GD-ROM discs.
Zelda is 32mb.
Cant be, considering Resi evil 2 was 512MB.
Dringo wrote:
> Indeed it was!
so how da hell can u fit it 47 times on a 1.5GB disc?
> Indeed it was!
so how da hell can u fit it 47 times on a 1.5GB disc?
But you will be able to pirate them in the end just as you can pirate GD-ROM discs.
Zelda is 32mb.
Zelda is 32mb.
most of the FF games are bigger than Zelda
Indeed it was!
The main reason for optical discs is to counteract pirecy! nothing else the small very small loading times is just a bonus so is the small system and the cheap system and games and 47 Zeldas!!!! i'm sorry but i have never seen a bigger game than Zelda.
Page: