The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
yeah they would have been, but this is exactly what should happen with the Gamecube. i dont really want the size of games to get any bigger, just better graphics.
But think how much better they had been if they had more space!
turbonutter wrote:
> But Mario 64 had crap and I mean CRAP sound and virtually no
> textures.
end of the day it comes back to graphics vs gameplay. Mario 64 was the first real 3d platformer and was a huge game. this game is a huge challenge to complete and really shows how nintendo can make massive games from limited space.
> But Mario 64 had crap and I mean CRAP sound and virtually no
> textures.
end of the day it comes back to graphics vs gameplay. Mario 64 was the first real 3d platformer and was a huge game. this game is a huge challenge to complete and really shows how nintendo can make massive games from limited space.
But Mario 64 had crap and I mean CRAP sound and virtually no textures.
An explanation Gamecube's storage format...
Nintendo Gamecube Disc holds 1.5 Gigabytes of data condensed onto an 8cm in diameter disc. If you compare the data storage capacity of the media to one of Nintendo 64's most popular games, Super Mario 64 (which holds 8MBs), you'll find that the Gamecube disc can store 190 times the data -- or roughly twice the amount of a regular CD game!
I don't think there is anything wrong with this... There is more than enough sace to make a great game.
Nintendo Gamecube Disc holds 1.5 Gigabytes of data condensed onto an 8cm in diameter disc. If you compare the data storage capacity of the media to one of Nintendo 64's most popular games, Super Mario 64 (which holds 8MBs), you'll find that the Gamecube disc can store 190 times the data -- or roughly twice the amount of a regular CD game!
I don't think there is anything wrong with this... There is more than enough sace to make a great game.
Dmos take ages on all formats. I know that because I have a PSX, I did have a PS2 and I am getting another one second hand and a PSx so I know about loading times and I am not biased and I don't try to be and I do favour my N64 and Nintendo because of loading times and the inability with EVERY game you have to sit through 5 mins waiting periods of advertisements and copyrites blah, blah blah!!!
But at least with NEARLY all Nintendo games it has no loading times and you can skip thorugh nearly all of the advertisements and cutscenes.
Also I like the four player option but that isn't apart of this topic and the fact that memory cards aren't a nessesity for all games and only some but that is another stoery!
:-)
And the fact that there are more available RPG's apart from Harvest moon, FF and Grandia and a bout 5 more GOOD RPGS and the exceptional Harvest moon, grandia and FF series.
I also find the graphics better and nicer to look at on N64 than on Sony but loading times can make a difference and I know that now every single console will have loading times with nintendos disc on the GC, but at least they will be faster than Ps2, DC and XBOX times! But I know that from playing my old PS2 and my mates that a lot of the Ps2 times are quite fast as well!
But at least with NEARLY all Nintendo games it has no loading times and you can skip thorugh nearly all of the advertisements and cutscenes.
Also I like the four player option but that isn't apart of this topic and the fact that memory cards aren't a nessesity for all games and only some but that is another stoery!
:-)
And the fact that there are more available RPG's apart from Harvest moon, FF and Grandia and a bout 5 more GOOD RPGS and the exceptional Harvest moon, grandia and FF series.
I also find the graphics better and nicer to look at on N64 than on Sony but loading times can make a difference and I know that now every single console will have loading times with nintendos disc on the GC, but at least they will be faster than Ps2, DC and XBOX times! But I know that from playing my old PS2 and my mates that a lot of the Ps2 times are quite fast as well!
I still can't see what the fuss is with loading times, It's mainly Sony haters who want something to pest them with.
Look at Tomb Raider it takes what, 8 seconds or something to load a 2 hour level. Loadng times have never interfeared with gameplay and don't bother me one way or the other.
First off the PS2's CD drive speed is 24x not 48 and even though the DVD speed is 4x the games load quicker and don't make a fraction of the noise the CD's do "WHOA". It's the same with PC's if the drive speed is fast then it does make a loud noise when it's spinning yes but with the DVD's which is obiviously going to be the prime format we shouldn't worry.
DVD's are humongus on the avilble space but games get bigger all the time like PS games started on 1 disc and they thought they'd never fill up one until games like G-police needed 2 discs an then fear effect and final fantasy up to 4.DVD's are big but so are the coming games.
Look at Tomb Raider it takes what, 8 seconds or something to load a 2 hour level. Loadng times have never interfeared with gameplay and don't bother me one way or the other.
First off the PS2's CD drive speed is 24x not 48 and even though the DVD speed is 4x the games load quicker and don't make a fraction of the noise the CD's do "WHOA". It's the same with PC's if the drive speed is fast then it does make a loud noise when it's spinning yes but with the DVD's which is obiviously going to be the prime format we shouldn't worry.
DVD's are humongus on the avilble space but games get bigger all the time like PS games started on 1 disc and they thought they'd never fill up one until games like G-police needed 2 discs an then fear effect and final fantasy up to 4.DVD's are big but so are the coming games.
I'm definitely going to get it when it comes out.
I didn't expect it to be that good.
Driver 3 (Called "Stuntman") looks sweeeeet on the PS2. They've promised to fix the loading times as well.
Driver 3 (Called "Stuntman") looks sweeeeet on the PS2. They've promised to fix the loading times as well.
Page: