This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why is Metal Gear Rising 24GB!?

#51Devil_wings00Posted 1/14/2014 11:56:18 PM
Majoras_pants posted...
Why even bother putting it on SSD? Just play it from your harddrive. SSDs are nice but have very little benefit when it comes to gaming.


Except the massively improved load times. Fallout new Vegas with a butt ton of texture mods on my 7200rpm drive takes about a minute to load where my SSD takes like 5-10 seconds. Sleeping dogs is another one that I can think of where the difference is 20-30 seconds on HDD vs. SSD. So ya that is a tangible benefit, especially in games that have tons of loading screens.
---
3570k @ 1.260v - 4.6Ghz
GTX 580 SLI
#52DV8ingSourcesPosted 1/15/2014 3:41:48 PM(edited)
The cranky hermit posted...
First of all, you weren't suggesting knocking 25%-50% off the file sizes. You were suggesting knocking 50%-75% off.
Second, yes, you did say it would look the same. For all intents and purposes, if you can't tell the difference, it looks the same.
Third, you have yet to name a video codec that is 50%-75% more space efficient than H.264 or whatever the game uses, at the same quality.

And arguing that the cut-scenes should have all been pre-rendered is a completely different argument than stating you can compress 20GB worth of FMV down to 5GB without being able to tell the difference.


Here's where you prove your lack of reading comprehension.

DV8ingSources posted...
The cranky hermit posted...
The 360 version of the game probably has the movie size at 4-5GB. It looks worse than the PC version, even to casual eyes.


True but there are better compression methods available that take a little more power to decode. It is likely possible that a 5-10 GB compression wouldn't really detract from the visuals all that much. Of course, from what I played anyways, everything could have easily been done on the engine without much fuss when considering the speed and power of a decent gaming pc.


I said 5-10 GB compression not final size. Just in case you don't follow, 20GB - 5 to 10 GB is the same as 25 - 50% reduction. True, I should have added "additional" before "compression" to be perfectly clear but it isn't normally necessary. I would never argue that 20 to 5 gigabytes of data would look even remotely the same.

DV8ingSources posted...
I didn't say it would look the same.


I was saying that the reduction to 10-15GB would not be that much worse than the current quality. Compression isn't a linear line and you can already tell that they are compressed right now, so a little more wouldn't hurt as much as you are implying.

Thank you sir.
---
2500k @ 4.4 | P8Z68-V Pro | H80 | 8GB RAM | 770 + 670 physx | 256 SSD | 8TB HDD | Win 8.1 64bit | ax1200w | CM690II
Steam: DV8ing1
#53The cranky hermitPosted 1/15/2014 4:23:09 PM
Here's where you prove your lack of reading comprehension.

For what? Interpreting "5GB-10GB compression" as "compress it to 5GB-10GB?" I think my interpretation was reasonable and you were being ambiguous. You seem to think so too. You said:
True, I should have added "additional" before "compression" to be perfectly clear
which admits that you weren't perfectly clear.

And yes, I know I chopped off the end of that quote. It doesn't change the meaning of the part before it - it's merely contradictory.

And it doesn't really matter, because even with your clarification, you're still in the wrong. I accept that "compress it to 10GB-15GB" is what you actually meant. My points 2 & 3 still apply.

I was saying that the reduction to 10-15GB would not be that much worse than the current quality.

You weren't saying it "would not be that much worse." You were saying it would look the same.

Compression isn't a linear line

Your graph is missing an axis. This doesn't even make any sense - you have to compare "compression" to something measurable as a function of "compression" before you can get a graph.

And even then, it would only make sense if by "compression" you actually mean "bitrate." Using these terms interchangeably further shows that you don't really know what you are talking about.

you can already tell that they are compressed right now

No s***, Sherlock. Video is ALWAYS compressed. The game would be well over 400GB if the video wasn't compressed.

so a little more wouldn't hurt as much as you are implying

And just how much am I implying? Your range still entails cutting the bitrate in half. All I've said is that you'd be able to tell that the resulting image quality is worse.
---
http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/
Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
#54SolidManifestPosted 1/15/2014 4:26:48 PM
Damaged7 posted...
20GB of videos for 3-4GB of game is rediculous.


funny part is they could have done those cut scenes with the game engine.
---
Buddha says He who is in Continuous Hell never dies. Longevity is a big hardship in Continuous Hell
#55DV8ingSourcesPosted 1/15/2014 4:45:44 PM(edited)
The cranky hermit posted...

You're insufferable and looking to create friction where there is none. I should have ignored you a long time ago and it's about time.

Learn the difference between

5-10GB compression
and
compressed to 5-10GB

But don't bother replying with anymore volatile hostilities in the name of being right when you are clearly straw-manning and/or spouting your own OPINION as fact. Again I didn't say it would look the same, I said it basically wouldn't matter... 2 completely different statements and you're arguing the opinion based one. Good day to you sir and hope life treats you a little better, as in my experience, crankiness comes from a deep dissatisfaction with ones own life.

I also like how you assume an h264 codec is being used when neither of us knows.

From my first relevant post... Where do I say it would look the same again?
DV8ingSources posted...
It is likely possible that a 5-10 GB compression wouldn't really detract from the visuals all that much.


---
2500k @ 4.4 | P8Z68-V Pro | H80 | 8GB RAM | 770 + 670 physx | 256 SSD | 8TB HDD | Win 8.1 64bit | ax1200w | CM690II
Steam: DV8ing1
#56TimePharaohPosted 1/15/2014 4:42:17 PM
Devil_wings00 posted...
Majoras_pants posted...
Why even bother putting it on SSD? Just play it from your harddrive. SSDs are nice but have very little benefit when it comes to gaming.


Except the massively improved load times. Fallout new Vegas with a butt ton of texture mods on my 7200rpm drive takes about a minute to load where my SSD takes like 5-10 seconds. Sleeping dogs is another one that I can think of where the difference is 20-30 seconds on HDD vs. SSD. So ya that is a tangible benefit, especially in games that have tons of loading screens.


Did you just compare an "open world" game with a "butt ton of texture mods" to a generic small area action game?


wot
---
HE are genius, firstly. - ASlaveObeys
GestapoFAQs http://i.imgur.com/prqCDHz.png http://i.imgur.com/ooNGE4u.png
#57ryan0991Posted 1/15/2014 5:06:46 PM
TimePharaoh posted...
Did you just compare an "open world" game with a "butt ton of texture mods" to a generic small area action game?

No, I don't think he did.
---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.
#58therickmu25Posted 1/15/2014 5:16:10 PM
Fade2black001 posted...
therickmu25 posted...
Weird, my download was only 10gbs


*gives digital high five*
---
PC: http://i.imgur.com/9Ho6VA1.jpg
#59Sir_Burpalot21Posted 1/15/2014 5:35:20 PM
lol at you fools putting MGR on an SSD.
The game sees negligible benefit from that because it already loads so fast.
---
"Jack Tretton, chief executive of Sony Computer Entertainment America, says he is pleased to see so many unsold PS3s sitting on shelves." -IGN