http://www.gamershell.com/news_50386.html
The soundtrack will be released two weeks earlier
We now have the complete track list of the Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots soundtrack, which will be available in Japan on May 28th, priced just 3045YEN (30USD). Press 'read more' to check the list and if you're interested, you can pre-order here. In related news, we have found out that Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots will need 4.6GB of free space on your PS3's hdd, in order to install the required files.
If you don't have a 360, you hate gaming.
If you don't have a 360, you hate gaming.
I have the 360's big brother; I love gaming!spoiler (click to show/hide):shh It's a PC.[close]
That joke worked last generation, not this time.
services > hardware :bow :bow2
:bow Power of Blu-Ray :bow2:-*
:bow Year of PS3 :bow2
this isit isn't.gettingridiculous. i'll be really pissed if it's not 720p native.
haha, oh wow. so is it 665p and 30fps? good god i hope mgs4 isn't using temporal aa too! man this game has been downgraded since it was revealed.TTP said it's "smooth 30fps", ask him just in case my memory is making shit up.
still can't wait to play it though.
Say why it happened. Say that the hardware is just too weak to handle it.He did. Kojima did an interview where he talked about the limitations of the actual PS3 versus the devkits or hardware specs he was given at first.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kojima+disappointed&btnG=Google+SearchSay why it happened. Say that the hardware is just too weak to handle it.He did. Kojima did an interview where he talked about the limitations of the actual PS3 versus the devkits or hardware specs he was given at first.
The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
We're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying.
yeah, that's a good cracked article
cracked the website is so much better than cracked the magazine ever was
(http://i32.tinypic.com/28s98o4.jpg)
(http://i27.tinypic.com/290ssk0.jpg)
(http://i31.tinypic.com/n18g9u.jpg)
(http://i32.tinypic.com/fm1hlz.jpg)
(http://i26.tinypic.com/29mso6a.jpg)
If you could show one of those screens next to a Crysis screen to some uninformed gamer he could easily mistake Crysis as some sort of next-gen game. Something out of this world and unattainable.
It's quite embarrassing that soon-to-be one year old PC game looks MILES ahead of MGS4.
Did you just call Crysis a tech demo.If you could show one of those screens next to a Crysis screen to some uninformed gamer he could easily mistake Crysis as some sort of next-gen game. Something out of this world and unattainable.
It's quite embarrassing that soon-to-be one year old PC game looks MILES ahead of MGS4.
its a one year old tech demo that cant be fully utilised on any hardware actually
Did you just call Crysis a tech demo.If you could show one of those screens next to a Crysis screen to some uninformed gamer he could easily mistake Crysis as some sort of next-gen game. Something out of this world and unattainable.
It's quite embarrassing that soon-to-be one year old PC game looks MILES ahead of MGS4.
its a one year old tech demo that cant be fully utilised on any hardware actually
My God you're even stupider than I thought.
at the end of the day
As for having to install, yeah it will be a pain in the future, but a 60GB has room to keep whatever MP games you want ready to go and a few SP games too, so with a little bit of thought, you're not likely to have to uninstall and reinstall games too often.
Yet still, after ALL THAT, not only does the game not really look that good, but you have to install part of it on to your system before being allowed to play.
Fancy Feast: fix your thread title.
People think it is about Hot Shots Golf 4.
HOW CAN YOU DEFEND SUCH BULLSHIT, sfags. And you AA.
This is not what console gaming should be about. This is not what elevated console gaming to the heights it sits on now. You didn't install, delete or wait 30 minutes on SNES, PSX or PS2.
Yet still, after ALL THAT, not only does the game not really look that good, but you have to install part of it on to your system before being allowed to play.
This is such bullshit though. The only thing it seems to have going against it are some less than excellent textures, but that's an issue with all games on all systems this generation. Of course, few of those can actually match MGS4 in terms of for example character detail, and atmospheric fx. The snow environment, for one, looks absolutely incredible. Giving MGS4 shit for supposedly not looking good enough is such a boneheaded thing to do. And there is nothing wrong with installing games on the system, as long as the benefits are obvious. I'd imagine that few here have actually played the game, so making judgments call on what is or isn't necessary is a prett ridiculous thing to do.
I don't particularly care for console gaming, and I don't at all mind that PC traditions enter the console space. I've never liked developers releasing unfinished games, knowing that they can patch them later, but you have to take the good with the bad.
Yet still, after ALL THAT, not only does the game not really look that good, but you have to install part of it on to your system before being allowed to play.
This is such bullshit though. The only thing it seems to have going against it are some less than excellent textures, but that's an issue with all games on all systems this generation. Of course, few of those can actually match MGS4 in terms of for example character detail, and atmospheric fx. The snow environment, for one, looks absolutely incredible. Giving MGS4 shit for supposedly not looking good enough is such a boneheaded thing to do. And there is nothing wrong with installing games on the system, as long as the benefits are obvious. I'd imagine that few here have actually played the game, so making judgments call on what is or isn't necessary is a prett ridiculous thing to do.
Are you fucking kidding me? There is no way whatsoever to rationalize having to install four gigabytes, THAT'S 4,000,000,000(billion) BYTES, for a game that comes on a 50GB disc, THAT'S 50,000,000,000(billion) BYTES. MGS4 by NO definition looks BAD, but for the amount of space given, time taken and money used, it should without question look better than what we've come to. Some textures are EXACTLY similar to ones in MGS3, a game that's a good four years old.
No, I don't have to, and neither should you or anybody else. There's no reason console video game developers have to abandon the way console games used to work outside of laziness and greed.
:heartbeat Borys, I got your back
I still think the majority of that 50GB will be audio. WIth 50GB for textures... I mean hell that would be like 10 Xbox 1 games. TEN GAMES! I can't name even one PC game that uses 15 GB on disk. What the hell Kojima.
As for Halo 3, lol. The only good looking char was MC. The soldiers... :rofl
This is not what console gaming should be about. This is not what elevated console gaming to the heights it sits on now. You didn't install, delete or wait 30 minutes on SNES, PSX or PS2.
And this isn't aimed only against PS3. I know for a certain that if this shit flies now, every next-gen console will have such bullshit.
Again, you don't know how this cache benefits the game. Until you can actually give some good reason as to why and how it is this useless and "lazy" thing (good grief, dude), perhaps you shouldn't act so determined.They're clearly not useless but they're also not something to be excited about, at least based on what I've observed.
Ignoring for a second that you, most likely, don't know how many different environments there are in the game, how much variety is in each environment or how large the environments actually are, you do understand that the space it taken up by quite a few things other than textures, right? The 4GB is a cache file, and unless I've missed any reviews mentioning this, we don't know how that cache benefits the game. But, I'm sure it's more fun to panic about it.
Now, don't fucking say that Halo 3 or Gears of War matches MGS4 in terms of character detail, because they really fucking don't. Halo 3 least of all, good grief. "Going there" is only a good idea when you're right. And you're not.
Again, you don't know how this cache benefits the game. Until you can actually give some good reason as to why and how it is this useless and "lazy" thing (good grief, dude), perhaps you shouldn't act so determined.
Again, you don't know how this cache benefits the game. Until you can actually give some good reason as to why and how it is this useless and "lazy" thing (good grief, dude), perhaps you shouldn't act so determined.They're clearly not useless but they're also not something to be excited about, at least based on what I've observed.
Most multiplat games that have had installs on PS3 have enjoyed slight load time advantages over the X360 version, at best, and a lot seem to take just as long to load.
PS3 installs have seemed like a bandaid for some sort of load speed deficiency compared to DVD based systems, thus far.
MGS4 may not have crysis' graphics but it will still be 20 times more imaginative and interesting.
I'm just sort of sad that I made my last post so thoughtful and nobody's responded to it.
I'm just sort of sad that I made my last post so thoughtful and nobody's responded to it.
Both Halo 3 and Gears of War are on older, inferior hardware, and are located on a disc that's a whopping 8GBs. That's less than one sixth of the size of a BRD. Even less if you consider the cache MGS4 requires. With those limitations, at least Epic and Bungie saw fit to work within them, and produced something that is at least comparable to that of MGS4s. Not better, not exactly equal, but the quality is in the same range.
I just put a 160GB HDD in my PS3 so this does not bother me one bit
let's say you have a 60gb unit. let's say 50% of all games you buy have a 2-6gb install, 3.5 on average. if i buy 30 games -- and i have over 120 for the ps2 -- i have 3.5 x 15 = 52.5gb worth of installs, leaving very little room for demo/game downloads, game caches, and the occasional oddball game that wants to write a massive save. this is bullshit.
sigh - what is the difference? are you serious? when was the last time you had a gaming PC with 40/60 gig storage capacity? 1992 possibly?
60 gig capacity is already too small if it installs this much stuff - i'm off to work in 10 minutes, when i get back, i'll break down what i have on my 60 gig and you'll see i have to decide WHICH game i have installs + DLC. NO music, no movies, no photos (i can stream all of that from my PC), 1 Demo (MGO!) so just GAMES and DLC INSTALLS.
do i have the same problem on my PC? NO. Why? Because even a shitty pc comes with over 500gigs of storage. I may have to delete games at some point (well, i would if i didn't actuall have 2.5TB), but we are talking about 50-100 games before it even crosses my mind.
The PC defense is a fantasy - the stark reality is we have to go back to 486 times to have anywhere NEAR a comprable situation (and then we were balking at 8 meg games, so even it's probably not the same EITHER) . Put it into numbers, see how laughable the "same as a PC" argument is.
yes, i made an horrific error with 60 gig - it was more like 200 mb back in 1992. yes. but a few years and standard hard drive was 80gig? I'm not sure about that, but hey. Even so, why is something that an albeit standard pc practice now acceptable on consoles? especially when the nearest rival console that has the same games does not exhibit the same problem?
At the end of the day, going with an 80 gig drive has to be driven by -your- purchasing gaming habits and what -you- want to put up with. For me , that's completely different and i'm at my limit of HDD. I can't really take the argument any further! I'm at... my... hdd... limit. I play a lot of PC games and do music/photo work on it so i made sure it was fit for purpose : tons and tons of space. Do i really have to start taking this into account for the PS3? Can you see the wider retail implications here? You can see where this is going in the X360 vs PS3 debate without anyone pointing it out surely?
hold on here - NO ONE is complaining about devs being lazy, or the time it takes to install before i can play games -the first time- (note i'm making a distinction here) , or anything of that of any sort. It's the juggling of games that is the problem. It has implications for Sony's answer to XBL , it has implications about replayability of games (if you stick with the stock drive (as i suspect the vast majority of consumers will)) then you are surely going to have to limit your choice of accessible games. As i say, i'm AT THAT POINT NOW and i've bought most multiparty games on x360.
You haven't read Raban's posts in this thread, have you? If one was to assume that his posts were based on findings after actually playing the game, one could very easily be led to believe that the game cache is just there because Kojima is too lazy to figure out another way to get the same result. And that's what I'm questioning, this knee-jerk reaction against game installs when in reality, no one knows why this cache is needed. I don't even like the company, but I have hard time stomaching the idea that this install is somehow a lazy shortcut. We'll see when it comes out, the cache may or may not seem justified.
But that's something you, as a "poweruser" (haven't gotten to use that in a few years, woohoo), should take into account. The HDD size was likely determined based on your average user. A dude who downloads a reasonable amount of demos, stores a reasonable amount of music and pictures, and who doesn't play all of the games in his library on a regular basis. For that person, 60GB (now 80GB) is really not a small amount of space. When you consider that the competition sells a system that features over 40GB less usable space and also pimps its game media content download functionalities, it's really not that limited. You, on the other hand, fall outside the average user bracket, and people like you (and me) will have to upgrade. And that option is there, but as with any other situation where you fall outside the average user bracket, there's an additional cost involved.
Oh yeah, and it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, you crazy motherfucker, to call the devs lazy. Almost every top-billing game has received a major patch to fix performance issues weeks after release. This is called laziness on the developer's behalf.
Good job with anecdotal ass residue there. Everybody I know who has a PS3, hardcore gamer or not, buys trailers and demos up like they were in limited release, and most of them don't bother to uninstall them, even after they've finished playing. If we run with MY piece of anecdotal evidence instead of yours, not only is the time taken to install a 4GB cache onto your hard drive, but also the time taken to uninstall shit you don't seem to use anymore to make room for said cache.
I'm gonna wait it out and get the 360 version with no install and 720p 4xMSAA
The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
What's the difference between console and PC, really? Both Microsoft and Sony have gone straight for offering budget gaming PCs (complete with giving developers the luxury of releasing unfinished games knowing that it can be finished with a few patches distributed across the network), so unless you're a Wiiner, don't gripe too loud about having to deal with PC traditions. So you have to delete a few game caches, which would be exactly how it'd work on a PC. Big deal. If you have a 60GB machine, then you should have ample storage for game caches. That is, unless you filled the HDD with music, photos or video, but then you wouldn't have done that since you don't want the whole PC in a box situation anyway.
But then this whole situation is mostly annoying because it's so god damned pathetic; the majority of people "concerned" with this are not only bent console jockeys (I want simplicity, waah waah), but shitsifting Xtards at that. Of course, the arguments would be reversed if the situation was reversed. It's getting to be too fucking predictable, and that includes my own involvement.
Sure, that qualifies. Not as laziness, but it sucks that the "we'll fix it in post" has become common practice. But the outrage over this particular situation is a knee-jerk reaction. We don't know what benefit the cache will have, yet it's already widely labeled an atrocity. Maybe I misread this, but I could have sworn that you yourself went on a longer rant regarding the time and money spent on developing this exclusive game, and questioning why it would still require this cache. That to me is the same as opnely doubting that the developer is doing the best job it can do. And as we don't actually know what this cache is and what it benefits, going on a raging bender over its mere existence is more than a little bit premature.
Uh, then that's their fucking problem then, isn't it? You can't really in good conscience bitch about having no more space on a HDD if you aren't prepared to at least clean up the crap that you don't use. And as for my anecdotal evidence, I'm really just suggesting that Sony designed this with a specific average in mind. Whether that average is correct or not, I don't know. But I seem to recall one of the Sony head honchos even acknowledging this, and referencing the upgradeable HDD as a solution for the "power users".
I'm gonna wait it out and get the 360 version with no install and 720p 4xMSAA
good plan!
But yeah, maybe casuals will be fine. I just can't tell either way. Maybe casual PS3 fans will be fine if the anecdotal "movies, one or two games" theory is on the money?
What kind of flip-flopping is this? First you use casual gamers as an example supporting your side, now you don't give a shit about them. Thumbs up!
But yeah, maybe casuals will be fine. I just can't tell either way. Maybe casual PS3 fans will be fine if the anecdotal "movies, one or two games" theory is on the money?
I have a few seasons of Blackadder, the whole Bottom series and a few movies (not HD quality, mind you), as well as a bunch of music and a handful of PSN games and demos on the HDD, and I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20GB left. Now, I don't have any games that require multi-GB installs on there, and I don't think I will for some time. I don't know really, it'd always be better with more space, but in my case, dropping a few demos would clean things up quite a bit. I don't know which bracket I fit into, but I'm not feeling terribly cramped yet.
Again though, if the install gives worthwhile benefits, then I'm all for it. And I'm not going to claim that they should make it optional, because I don't know if the game is designed to allow for that. DMC4 does not sound worthwhile, but I don't know yet if MGS4 is as useless.
We're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.
The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
What's the difference between console and PC, really? Both Microsoft and Sony have gone straight for offering budget gaming PCs (complete with giving developers the luxury of releasing unfinished games knowing that it can be finished with a few patches distributed across the network), so unless you're a Wiiner, don't gripe too loud about having to deal with PC traditions. So you have to delete a few game caches, which would be exactly how it'd work on a PC. Big deal. If you have a 60GB machine, then you should have ample storage for game caches. That is, unless you filled the HDD with music, photos or video, but then you wouldn't have done that since you don't want the whole PC in a box situation anyway.
But then this whole situation is mostly annoying because it's so god damned pathetic; the majority of people "concerned" with this are not only bent console jockeys (I want simplicity, waah waah), but shitsifting Xtards at that. Of course, the arguments would be reversed if the situation was reversed. It's getting to be too fucking predictable, and that includes my own involvement.
No dude, there are actual 20GB owners who are fucked by this. And dcharlie makes a good point about Home. I personally like to pop in games off and on over the course of years, and I like not having to delete shit and then wait 10 minutes for an install. And if you're going to be doing this sort of Home interface it becomes even dumber.
Even 40 and 60GB owners will eventually be fucked if we keep getting 4 games every 7 months that take up 5GB each.
Never mind all the giant patches and shit I keep having to download and install. And the savegame files that are out of control huge (my Ratchet save is over 100MB IIRC). and 7GB or so isntantly eaten up when you format your HDD for PS3. I doubt a 20GB owner could even fit 3 games on it.
:duh
Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works (http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_p6.html)QuoteWe're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.
The PS3 and X360 aren't PCs and neither do they have the same base storage capacity. And as an ADD gamer, i don't want to have a shortened list of games that i can play (yes, i know PC etc... but again, scale is WAY different and this is a console!)
What's the difference between console and PC, really? Both Microsoft and Sony have gone straight for offering budget gaming PCs (complete with giving developers the luxury of releasing unfinished games knowing that it can be finished with a few patches distributed across the network), so unless you're a Wiiner, don't gripe too loud about having to deal with PC traditions. So you have to delete a few game caches, which would be exactly how it'd work on a PC. Big deal. If you have a 60GB machine, then you should have ample storage for game caches. That is, unless you filled the HDD with music, photos or video, but then you wouldn't have done that since you don't want the whole PC in a box situation anyway.
But then this whole situation is mostly annoying because it's so god damned pathetic; the majority of people "concerned" with this are not only bent console jockeys (I want simplicity, waah waah), but shitsifting Xtards at that. Of course, the arguments would be reversed if the situation was reversed. It's getting to be too fucking predictable, and that includes my own involvement.
No dude, there are actual 20GB owners who are fucked by this. And dcharlie makes a good point about Home. I personally like to pop in games off and on over the course of years, and I like not having to delete shit and then wait 10 minutes for an install. And if you're going to be doing this sort of Home interface it becomes even dumber.
Even 40 and 60GB owners will eventually be fucked if we keep getting 4 games every 7 months that take up 5GB each.
Never mind all the giant patches and shit I keep having to download and install. And the savegame files that are out of control huge (my Ratchet save is over 100MB IIRC). and 7GB or so isntantly eaten up when you format your HDD for PS3. I doubt a 20GB owner could even fit 3 games on it.
Fair enough, but then that is the budget version, and subsequently the budget experience.
And what's this about Home? Is the application massive or something? Honest question, I'm not following Home at all.
I have on my 40gb drive just TWO installs - Everybodys Golf World Tour and GT5. I've also got some music a bunch of demo's (Haze, MLB 08, Siren, Battle Fantasia), the Metal Gear Online beta and some PSN games (SSHD, PixelJunk Monsters, Warhawk Omega Pack) and I'm well under 15gb. If you added in DMC4 and MGS4 I'd be looking at almost no space.
:duh
Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works (http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_p6.html)QuoteWe're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.
But if the game doesn't fucking work without the cache, then asking for it to be optional is idiotic. You don't know jack shit about how the game is designed, so why the blind request for something that may not be possible without drastically changing the game, and by doing so perhaps threaten the vision that the developer has for the game? There's nothing dysfunctional about releasing a game with a mandatory install on a system that supports it. You may not like that it takes up space, but that doesn't make it a wrong.
:duh
Thou Shalt Make Your Game Actually Works (http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_p6.html)QuoteWe're ashamed to even have to include this. This is like having to ask McDonald's to cook the burger before they serve it to you, or having to remind your dentist not to videotape himself slapping you in the face with his penis while you're under. It's the sort of thing you'd feel ridiculous saying. Yet, here we are, telling the game industry to please only sell us games that function.
But if the game doesn't fucking work without the cache, then asking for it to be optional is idiotic. You don't know jack shit about how the game is designed, so why the blind request for something that may not be possible without drastically changing the game, and by doing so perhaps threaten the vision that the developer has for the game? There's nothing dysfunctional about releasing a game with a mandatory install on a system that supports it. You may not like that it takes up space, but that doesn't make it a wrong.
That's the whole FUCKING point I'm trying to make, jack!
It shouldn't need the FUCKING HDD for FUCK'S sake!
It's a FUCKING console FUCKING game MOTHERFUCKER. It should have been designed from the FUCKING get-go to not need the FUCKING HDD you dumb BITCH.
Is it too much to ask to let me put the FUCKING disc in the FUCKING tray and FUCKING play it right FUCKING then!? I FUCKING guess so, according to Duckman's FUCKED up FUCKING explanation for things that I can't FUCKING understand, according to Doctor FUCKING DuckFUCKER.
And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved? Don't like the HDD? Stick with Wii. The PS3 has a HDD, and developers use it. Some use it well, others just use it. The HDD gives us the benefit of storing media and games, but it comes with the downside of being used to facilitate the release of incomplete or buggy games. An install file, however, does not fall in that bracket. Whether it's there to cover up flaws in other parts of the console's design or not, it's not poor usage of an HDD.
QuoteAnd how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?
by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?
QuoteAnd how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?
by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?
But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.
Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.
How did HDD installs help the "vision of the developer" in the install-games that are out? Why do GTA4 and LP run worse despite this? Is HSG impossible on 360? What great vision was finally realized on PS3 in DMC4?
i can tell you how mgs4 uses the cache file -- to fucking CACHE FILES because the blu-ray drive is so goddamn slow on the edges. that's the point of a cache! if there's gonna be heavy-duty streaming, then the cache is an easy solution to that problem.
QuoteAnd how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?
by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?
But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.
Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.
It's not premature. My main complaint isn't if the mandatory install is going to be worthwhile or not, that's the part you give a shit about, and I don't give a shit about you. What my main complaint is that HDD installations exist period, and just like paying 60 dollars for games, or online patching, HDD installations are going to become standard when we let games like MGS4 fly by without so much as a blink.
How did HDD installs help the "vision of the developer" in the install-games that are out? Why do GTA4 and LP run worse despite this? Is HSG impossible on 360? What great vision was finally realized on PS3 in DMC4?
How can it be premature when HDDs are already rapidly filling up and no game to this point has done shit to be worth it, and MGS4 is already less than the graphical showcase it was expected to be? MGS4 has to prove that it was worth it, we don't have to give it the benefit of the doubt.
QuoteAnd how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved?
by having a well designed machine with console gaming in mind from the get go?
But no one, except Nintendo, has managed to develop such a machine, or at least not one that is going to meet all wishes and requirements of the people. And these people seem quite happy about other usages of the HDD, with this install deal being the big bad wolf. I can see space being an issue, but asking for it to be optional, and arguing that developers should be able to do better when that could very well be crucial to sticking close to the vision the developer has of the game, I don't get that.
Again, no one here knows how Konami is using that HDD, and the cache file. So it is premature to complain about it.
It's not premature. My main complaint isn't if the mandatory install is going to be worthwhile or not, that's the part you give a shit about, and I don't give a shit about you. What my main complaint is that HDD installations exist period, and just like paying 60 dollars for games, or online patching, HDD installations are going to become standard when we let games like MGS4 fly by without so much as a blink.
But if they can't build the game and have it run on the PS3 without this install cache, then griping about it is idiotic. You could wish that they would release it on the 360, but then it'd be compromised or a hassle to deal with due to the limited disc space. And it is premature, as you do not fucking know what it affects or why it is specifically needed for this specific game. Does it have to track complex, persistent data through levels? That'd be one good reason to use the cache. I don't know if it does anything of the sort, or if it's really just covering for another weakness in the system it's developed for. But until I do know, I'm not going to gripe about it being a horrible waste of space and the wrong thing to do.
You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.
And how in the hell is that supposed to be achieved? Don't like the HDD? Stick with Wii. The PS3 has a HDD, and developers use it. Some use it well, others just use it. The HDD gives us the benefit of storing media and games, but it comes with the downside of being used to facilitate the release of incomplete or buggy games. An install file, however, does not fall in that bracket. Whether it's there to cover up flaws in other parts of the console's design or not, it's not poor usage of an HDD.
Why the fuck do you make it sound like HDDs are necessary for next-gen games? 360 has an HDD, let's count how many games use it for a cache >1GB:
~
That's right! None! Fuck you!
firstly, MGS sucks and it's common knowledge that it's only liked by elitist complete losers who love homoerotic jappy-wacky nerd humor so who cares if they abuse themselves with 20 minute install screens or hentai or whatever?
However, it is stupid to call the 20 GB PS3 a budget version. it was more expensive than any console sold by the competition. It's one thing to allow all games to do that temporary cache thing that you can do on 360's with hard drives, but it's obvious that Sony did not design the PS3 hard drive to do something like a 5 GB install.
Doesn't Oblivion use the HDD -optionally- as a cache to help with loading? Pretty sure I read some developer comments about it.
Oblivion uses the Xbox 360 hard drive extensively to cache (copy and reuse) game data. This is done to optimize all loading the game does.
You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.
Except of course for the fact that no one here actually has the source of so much grief installed on their PS3 at this point. So really, saying "maybe-some day" echoes hollow when you consider that all this bitching is over something that is, right now, an unknown.
QuoteBut if they can't build the game and have it run on the PS3 without this install cache, then griping about it is idiotic. You could wish that they would release it on the 360, but then it'd be compromised or a hassle to deal with due to the limited disc space.
oh come on, that's a huge leap.
There's several games that are cross platform that need mandatory installs on the PS3 that happen to be WORSE than their X360 counterparts. How can you take that and the infer that the X360 versions of games would be compromised or a hassle to deal with?
I'll go one further - i'll not die of shock if the 4 gig install is the entire game, with the BR simply providing media play back for cut scenes. The install cache will have nothing to do with the media played back, and that's the only area i'd expect the X360 to be compromised. The size of the game and the quality of the game itself wouldn't be touched.
Hell, need more space? compress the sound and video and stick it on two disks.
You can't hold up some strawman maybe-someday shit like that against legitimate, existing grief people are getting from their HDDs, right now.
Except of course for the fact that no one here actually has the source of so much grief installed on their PS3 at this point. So really, saying "maybe-some day" echoes hollow when you consider that all this bitching is over something that is, right now, an unknown.
Yes, none of us know how it will be used.
But what scenario is better than what people are speculating on? At the end of the day you have:
1) a pain-in-the-ass install process (that you might have to repeat several times if you go back to the game)
2) a significant chunk of HDD space gone
None of those are particularly awful (what good is HDD space if you don't use it??) so i'm personally not that incensed. But I can't imagine any upside that might become obvious once the game is out in the wild. Enlighten us!
duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except
"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"
Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.
duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except
"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"
Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.
Except there is no "bullshit" about that. You went into some knee-jerk panic there, and it makes absolutely no fucking sense to do so right now. Unless the company is a lot less competent than I've been lead to believe. But then some of you guys are claiming that the game itself looks to be below par in most ways, so whatever. What a riot.
duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except
"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"
Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.
Except there is no "bullshit" about that. You went into some knee-jerk panic there, and it makes absolutely no fucking sense to do so right now. Unless the company is a lot less competent than I've been lead to believe. But then some of you guys are claiming that the game itself looks to be below par in most ways, so whatever. What a riot.
It doesn't make sense for you to repeat the same shit over and over again like your brain is overheated from all the semen you keep snorting every time you suck six dicks stacked like bricks in a row.
Well, it's still the budget version of the PS3. That the PS3 in itself was horrendously overpriced is a different matter.yeah, but you can still see how it would be wrong if most major games on PS3 required installing, it just gets annoying.. OTOH, most of the early adopters who got the 20 GB probably got it for Bluray mainly. I don't think anybody expected installs to become this popular on PS3.
duckman, please just give up, you're really bad at this. I looked at this thread from the beginning of this argument, and you don't seem to be saying much else in every single one of your fucking replies except
"I don't give a shit what your examples are, we don't know what the cache is for blah blah blah"
Just stop. I can't believe I was falling for your bullshit THIS long.
Except there is no "bullshit" about that. You went into some knee-jerk panic there, and it makes absolutely no fucking sense to do so right now. Unless the company is a lot less competent than I've been lead to believe. But then some of you guys are claiming that the game itself looks to be below par in most ways, so whatever. What a riot.
It doesn't make sense for you to repeat the same shit over and over again like your brain is overheated from all the semen you keep snorting every time you suck six dicks stacked like bricks in a row.
So basically, you've got nothing? I suppose that's the EB version of that.
See, I don't know. So I'm not going to treat it like a DMC4 situation when quite a few capable developers have managed to avoid falling in that hole. This is developed specifically for the PS3, and it's my understanding that Kojima Productions is comprised of quite a few clever people. Naughty Dog managed to do pretty awesome things with only a brief cache install that felt more like an extra long load screen, which resulted in a complete streamlined and good looking game with no freaking load screens anyway. Is Naughty Dog really that much more accomplished than Kojima Productions? If they are not, it's hard to buy that the company wouldn't do something useful with the cache install. So yeah, guesswork, but it's about brilliant of a base as assuming right off the bat that it will be a useless install simply because 3rd party cross platform games have done less than amazing things with that HDD.
On that note, I'm defending fucking Kojima Productions, the developer of a franchise that I really, really do not like. Which is insane. God damn it.
let's say you have a 60gb unit. let's say 50% of all games you buy have a 2-6gb install, 3.5 on average. if i buy 30 games -- and i have over 120 for the ps2 -- i have 3.5 x 15 = 52.5gb worth of installs, leaving very little room for demo/game downloads, game caches, and the occasional oddball game that wants to write a massive save. this is bullshit.
my pc has 500gb space. my pc also has convenient uninstall and backup features, and a defrag option.
on 20 disks though lol
I got the 20GB PS3 because I'm a cheapskate. It's pretty much full after 3 installs. I had RR7 and FFXI installed and I had to remove RR7 when I bought HSG5. Still, not interested in MGS4 since I haven't played 2-3 anyway, but I'm pretty against the whole installation thing, esp. when all you get is normal/respectable loadtimes as a result. Half the time, the installations are just making up for BD deficits.
huh? you're going to have to break this down - i've frankly no idea what you are trying to say here.
Again, we've strayed. Even if it turns out that whatever funky feature it is , the install issue STILL reamins.
you keep mentioning the griping, but you seem to fail to see that even if it the cache does do something great, it still means that the same fundamental issue is there. we could stop griping , and of course you could kill the contrary stance that it's some amazing use of a cache too.
I plan on getting the biggest HDD for my PS3 when my rebate check comes in from the gov. The biggest notebook drive is 320 GB, right? Or is there something larger?
QuoteBut if the install is actually proven to really benefit the game experience, then how does it warrant so much criticism? If it's a minor deal like DMC4, then sure, it's odd. But if it actually shows good usage of that HDD, is that worth the storage space it takes? Going into a bend over game patches, sure. But HDD usage doesn't actually have to be just a horrible waste of storage.
well, basically we are at an impasse - i hope it is an amazing use of the cache, but we'll just have to wait and see as no one will know.
Then again, as i keep saying, -mandatory- installs are still a problem for stock users and the fact this uses it well just makes it easier to swallow the usage. It doesn't fix the need to upgrade a -console-.
QuoteI'm not interested in defending MGS4, I just think that people might be underestimating Kojima Productions by assuming that it will be another DMC4-level effort. But we'll see, I'll try and practice what I preach for a change and shut up about it until we know more.
just out of interest, have you played/seen MGO?
i know it shouldn't be taken as an indication of what is coming in the full game, but yeah... it's not great.
No, the hopefuls among us might, but the reasonable response to it is probably to save the griping for when it's obvious that it's actually something worth griping about. HDD caching doesn't have to be a generally useless thing, even if other developers have used it for less than amazing things. I don't know exactly how MGS4 is designed, but you guys may know more. What have the previews said about things like load times between areas, and persistent features? And yeah, I am dragging Naughty Dog in to this as the design of its game seems to argue against that for example Blu Ray here creates an even for very good developers insurmountable obstacle that requires a good deal of caching to make up for its weakness. And if there isn't an issue that is insurmountable to quality developers, why would it be assumed that Kojima Productions' usage of the HDD would be on the level of cross platform games?
I got the 20GB PS3 because I'm a cheapskate. It's pretty much full after 3 installs. I had RR7 and FFXI installed and I had to remove RR7 when I bought HSG5. Still, not interested in MGS4 since I haven't played 2-3 anyway, but I'm pretty against the whole installation thing, esp. when all you get is normal/respectable loadtimes as a result. Half the time, the installations are just making up for BD deficits.
I got the 20GB PS3 because I'm a cheapskate. It's pretty much full after 3 installs. I had RR7 and FFXI installed and I had to remove RR7 when I bought HSG5. Still, not interested in MGS4 since I haven't played 2-3 anyway, but I'm pretty against the whole installation thing, esp. when all you get is normal/respectable loadtimes as a result. Half the time, the installations are just making up for BD deficits.
Bam.
AA seems to think this is GAF and he's responding to hollow fanboy talking points, when most people in this thread HAVE PS3s and are expressing THEIR OWN GRIEVANCES.
QuoteI'm not interested in defending MGS4, I just think that people might be underestimating Kojima Productions by assuming that it will be another DMC4-level effort. But we'll see, I'll try and practice what I preach for a change and shut up about it until we know more.
just out of interest, have you played/seen MGO?
i know it shouldn't be taken as an indication of what is coming in the full game, but yeah... it's not great.
AA seems to think this is GAF and he's responding to hollow fanboy talking points, when most people in this thread HAVE PS3s and are expressing THEIR OWN GRIEVANCES.
I'll go one further - i'll not die of shock if the 4 gig install is the entire game, with the BR simply providing media play back for cut scenes. The install cache will have nothing to do with the media played back, and that's the only area i'd expect the X360 to be compromised. The size of the game and the quality of the game itself wouldn't be touched.Why do you continue to insist that the game uses any sort of pre-recorded video? The game relies almost 100% on realtime 3D cutscenes. Audio data would indeed require some space, but it wouldn't be unreasonably big. It is highly unlikely that the entire game fits within 4gb, I'd say. You can't "comrpess" realtime 3D cutscenes and audio compression wouldn't buy a lot of space.
Hell, need more space? compress the sound and video and stick it on two disks.
mgs4 has last gen graphics
I call it what I see itmgs4 has last gen graphics
And I'm the one getting shit in this thread? Get the fuck out of here.
:-\ dark1x, mgs4 has last gen graphics, bad texture work, and its 1024x768, 30 fps, and it requires 4GB installsandwich, what does it have to do with Wii issues?The original poster stated...
I am however looking at the Wii lately, it seems to have enough games to make it worthy of a purchase(bloom Blox pushed me over the edge).I just found it odd that a thread designed to slam the PS3 for its storage issues would mention the Wii (which has more severe issues at this point). The Wii has nothing to do with this issue, but I found it funny that it was mentioned when you consider what people are complaining about in this thread.
mgs4 is a really nice looking game in motion, screens dont do it justice at allf'real real
Can you really imgaine what it takes to fill 50 GBs? It takes huge-ass numbers of textures, not 3D data for movement, cutscenes or shaders. Even mocap takes little space next to a the textures on the object that is mocapped.I honestly have no idea what it is that requires so much space. It's just that DC has suggested several times that the game uses pre-rendered HD videos which is not true.
disc 3 and 4 were filled with a lot of fmvs, short fmvs but still....QuoteCan you really imgaine what it takes to fill 50 GBs? It takes huge-ass numbers of textures, not 3D data for movement, cutscenes or shaders. Even mocap takes little space next to a the textures on the object that is mocapped.I honestly have no idea what it is that requires so much space. It's just that DC has suggested several times that the game uses pre-rendered HD videos which is not true.
Of course, Japanese developers seem to have a real issue with space. I still have no idea why Lost Odyssey shipped on 4 discs. There are VERY few CG cutscenes, a limited amount of voice acting (much much less than something like Xenosaga, for instance), and fairly limited areas to explore. There was no logical reason for its high space requirements, but there it was, four discs. I'd assume MGS4 is similar.
I also don't know why exactly does it need that much. I guess we will all know after the game ships and people actualy beat it. This isn't a sandbox type of game, you don't need to have much redundant data in order for the streaming to go well.Well, Sandbox games typically have lesser storage requirements due to the re-usage of data throughout the world. Oblivion is a great example of this as its textures and meshes are re-used throughout the entire game. A lengthy single player adventure with a large number of unique environments requires much more data. MGS4 does seem to include a huge variety of environments and the space requirements can vary depending on how they were created and stored.
disc 3 and 4 were filled with a lot of fmvs, short fmvs but still....Not really. A limited number of FMVs and they were all short as you say.
It leaves me asking, if there's 4.7gb of cache on the HDD, what's coming off the blu-ray aside from audio
there is at least 12 fucking fmvs in disc 3, and no i don't think fmvs are the reason for using 4 discs more like shitty japanese developers.I don't remember that many, but regardless, they were all so short that there isn't any point in arguing about it.
isn't that because PC games have different set of textures packed in the game? so you could choose from Low to High Texture quality? and maybe other things. ???there is at least 12 fucking fmvs in disc 3, and no i don't think fmvs are the reason for using 4 discs more like shitty japanese developers.I don't remember that many, but regardless, they were all so short that there isn't any point in arguing about it.
My point is, every game is going to have different storage requirements and sometimes it is the result of poor data management. The PC versions of various UE3 games, for instance, require loads of space. Turok requires ~14gb, Blacksite and Stranglehold over 10gb, and Gears of War just shy of it. Why the hell would something like Turok require THAT much space (more than double that of the 360 version which reads entirely from a slower DVD)? The MGS4 situation may be rather similar.
Having seen Turok for PC, I'm not convinced it even shipped with a genuine high quality texture package.Most console to PC ports do not ship with a set of textures higher resolution than what was found in the original game.
For real. I saw some initial praise for the game on NeoGAF, and I couldn't relate, at all. It even had this bug annoying view bob that I hadn't seen in a "big" FPS since the late 90s.
For real. I saw some initial praise for the game on NeoGAF, and I couldn't relate, at all. It even had this bug annoying view bob that I hadn't seen in a "big" FPS since the late 90s.
neogaf would praise anything that came out of their favorite mods' bunghole. just sayin'. :-*
It's ok, it bombed, and everyone cheered
mgs4 is a really nice looking game in motion, screens dont do it justice at all
This is a truism about every game, but it tends to be trotted out for games that are graphically disappointing. Nobody is reduced to saying that screenshots for crysis don't do the game justice and that the game needs to be seen in motion.
mgs4 is a really nice looking game in motion, screens dont do it justice at all
This is a truism about every game, but it tends to be trotted out for games that are graphically disappointing. Nobody is reduced to saying that screenshots for crysis don't do the game justice and that the game needs to be seen in motion.
Uncharted at least has LIGHTING AND SHADOWING which is non-existant in those pics Shogmaster posted.While that is true, the game DOES feature fully dynamic shadows for all objects and structures. I'm not sure why those particular areas are so awful looking, but the game certainly has a fairly solid lighting/shadow engine in place.
Yeah, MGS4 really looks lousy in some pics. I thought MGO looked really nice while playing, but nothing spectacular. I'm pretty disappointed by the visuals myself, but it's not a bad looking game. I think we are looking at yet another case where a Japanese developer is unable to compete with Western technologies.QuoteUncharted at least has LIGHTING AND SHADOWING which is non-existant in those pics Shogmaster posted.While that is true, the game DOES feature fully dynamic shadows for all objects and structures. I'm not sure why those particular areas are so awful looking, but the game certainly has a fairly solid lighting/shadow engine in place.
MGO was miserable to look at, and even more miserable to play. Still, the actual footage I've seen of MGS4 looks to be leagues ahead of MGO in terms of visual oomph, but it doesn't look like it's much fun to play. I tend to agree though, Japanese developers are generally being schooled by their western counterparts right now.You thought MGO was ugly? I dunno, I really thought it looked pretty good overall. Textures that seemed awful in screenshots actually looked pretty clean in person. There was something about the visuals that I quite liked. It was a very solid looking title, just not among the most technically accomplished. From what I can tell, MGS4 itself looks quite a bit better (more detailed), so it should be pretty nice in the end.
QuoteWhy do you continue to insist that the game uses any sort of pre-recorded video?
because its the only way i can believe this game needed the full 50gig. ;)
(i have no idea, i have got it into my head it's using video - and yeah, it's probably not true)
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
It's got uncompressed audio tracks to fill the BR disc. 360 version (yawn) could easily be filled into 7GB by using XMA audio instead of uncompressed BS that 99.99% of people couldn't care less about or have the set up to discern the difference.
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
It's got uncompressed audio tracks to fill the BR disc. 360 version (yawn) could easily be filled into 7GB by using XMA audio instead of uncompressed BS that 99.99% of people couldn't care less about or have the set up to discern the difference.
Through HDMI audio, you'd be wrong, but since most people use the composite audio, you're right.
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
It's got uncompressed audio tracks to fill the BR disc. 360 version (yawn) could easily be filled into 7GB by using XMA audio instead of uncompressed BS that 99.99% of people couldn't care less about or have the set up to discern the difference.
Through HDMI audio, you'd be wrong, but since most people use the composite audio, you're right.
I'll bet HDMI to LCD TV's buily in speakers is majority's gaming set up. HDMI by itself don't guarantee shit for the end user's set up.
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
It's got uncompressed audio tracks to fill the BR disc. 360 version (yawn) could easily be filled into 7GB by using XMA audio instead of uncompressed BS that 99.99% of people couldn't care less about or have the set up to discern the difference.
Through HDMI audio, you'd be wrong, but since most people use the composite audio, you're right.
I'll bet HDMI to LCD TV's buily in speakers is majority's gaming set up. HDMI by itself don't guarantee shit for the end user's set up.
That's not how HDMI audio works though. Through shitty two-channel TV audio, it's gonna sound like shit anyways. I'm agreeing with you.
If people had half a brain and knew how to set up a sound system, people could hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed audio easy as breathing, but since most people in the world, especially ones that would happily buy the royal cluster fuck MGS4 is sure to be, are complete idiots, they're not gonna know the difference anyways.
Maybe for the PC version but if you have can't have a console game where the textures lose definition when there's a lot going on...well not without the gamer noticing.so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?
Right. MGS4 could easily be ported to the PC and turn out to be the best version.
Although it is all speculation. I'm sure that as we get closer to the MGS4 release more information about what is on the disc will surface. If I wanted to make a crazy guess right now, I would say that MGS4 includes two texture sets. One is very high res that causes the game to be around 30 fps while there are less impressive textures, but the game will be able to run at 60 fps.
Maybe for the PC version but if you have can't have a console game where the textures lose definition when there's a lot going on...well not without the gamer noticing.
so i'd assume if uncompressed audio is the main burn , and if there are no vids, then a port of this game would be straightforward right?I see no reason why this couldn't be ported, but the question is, why does it matter?
cut-scenes, right?:sp0rsk1
Other than the perfect AA, I'm not seeing much difference between what's in these screens and what has been shown in-game. Maybe if some of you guys weren't so determined to focus on the worst looking parts of the worst looking screens, you'd notice that it's overall a pretty damned nice looking game.for once we agree. :-*
That's supposed to be the best looking game this gen?
I hold my reservations about the image quality of those "screenshots". I think they are photochopped.
Although I haven't finished the game, I have played MGS4 on a 720p LCD and it looks nowhere near as nice as those pictures.
Just saying.
And I don't think anyone would've expected so much from "next-gen" consoles if Sony didn't come charging in and beating the "PLAY B3YOND, True HD, 1000x more powerful than your PC" drum in our faces. Only then did I expect to see such qualities delivered in next-gen gaming.
So far it's been one giant, massive, colossal disappointment.
Shocking revelations, here. So how was the game itself?
Shocking revelations, here. So how was the game itself?
The game isn't half-bad, but then you're asking a guy who never finished MGS2 because he got stuck in one of the first levels and never bothered to go back. Plus, I'm a SC:CT fan.
Having said that, this game is definitely much better in terms of gameplay than my only other MGS benchmark, MGS2. (Oh, and I have the version for the original Xbox - what was it? Metal Gear Subservience or Someshite? I never played past the first hour or so.)
What I don't like about MGS4 (and is a common complaint I have with MGS in general) is that parts of the game are downright "gimmicky". I mean, there are parts where the attention to detail may be simply too much - to the point where it begins to interfere with real gameplay, because there are just so many non-interactive animations that need to be played out before you are back in the action again.
Don't get me wrong: the attention to detail is fantastic. At times you'll say, "wow, Kojima and Co. really put some thought into this". Then you realize that it's exactly this attention to detail that is cool to do once or twice, but even then you can only tell the same joke two or three times before the punchline no longer delivers.
At times it feels like for every major cut-scenes there are hundreds of mini cut-scenes, and half the time you are just waiting to jump back into the game again. If there were ever a game designed by a narcissist for his own pleasure, I'd say this is it.
I'll definitely buy it, though; this time I have a feeling I won't get stuck and won't be let down too much - I'm just waiting for the US version to be released (and available) where I live.
Oh shit!! I have to remember not to post about games when I'm drunk. I always read things wrong which leads to misunderstandings. :-[ :-[ :-[:-* :-* :-*
Sorry about that guys. :-[
Uh-oh?
As Metal Gear Solid 4's release date draws near, more and more info about the game's expected to spill out. Some of it from people who have played through the thing already. People who sat through a lotta cutscenes. Some of them up to 90-minutes long. Nintety. Minutes. Sure, you can pause them, and skip them, but ninety minutes? Bring popcorn.http://kotaku.com/392923/mgs4-has-90+minute-cutscenes
We know the Metal Gear Solid series is famous for its long cut-scenes, but this tops everything! Metal Gear Solid 4, the latest instalment in Hideo Kojima's seminal stealth series, has cut-scenes (note the plural) that approach the 90 minutes mark.http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189543
only possible with the power of blu ray.QuoteAs Metal Gear Solid 4's release date draws near, more and more info about the game's expected to spill out. Some of it from people who have played through the thing already. People who sat through a lotta cutscenes. Some of them up to 90-minutes long. Nintety. Minutes. Sure, you can pause them, and skip them, but ninety minutes? Bring popcorn.http://kotaku.com/392923/mgs4-has-90+minute-cutscenesQuoteWe know the Metal Gear Solid series is famous for its long cut-scenes, but this tops everything! Metal Gear Solid 4, the latest instalment in Hideo Kojima's seminal stealth series, has cut-scenes (note the plural) that approach the 90 minutes mark.http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=189543
wtf :dizzy
dcharlie: okay, it's on the BBFC site with a list of cut scene lengths.
Looks closer to 54 m than 545m - possible typo or error ?
or possibly not fully inclusive?
I dread to think how long it would take to translate NINE HOURS of cutscenes, so i have to eer on the side of it -not- having 9 hours of cutscenes.
only possible with the power of blu ray.Can't we all just get along? There's no reason to pit the 360 and PS3 against one another when everyone should unite against the Wii!
Makes sense. 9 hours is insane.That was an old topic. The answer seems to be that those 9 hours consist of choice clips selected by Konami for this group to view and rate.
Nobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
whatdog.gifNobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
Nobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
I was a bit off. According to Bungie, there are 41 minutes of cutscenes (total) in Halo 3.whatdog.gifNobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
yeah, most of them are 1 to 5 minutes long, some of them are just seconds long.I was a bit off. According to Bungie, there are 41 minutes of cutscenes (total) in Halo 3.whatdog.gifNobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
yeah, most of them are 1 to 5 minutes long, some of them are just seconds long.I was a bit off. According to Bungie, there are 41 minutes of cutscenes (total) in Halo 3.whatdog.gifNobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
What the fuck? Sfud? I was correcting someone on the notion that MGS4 would only contain 90 minutes of cutscenes total by pointing out the total length of the cutscenes in Halo 3. I only used Halo 3 as an example due to the fact that Bungie specifically commented on the total length of the cutscenes. Whether or not you believe lengthy cutscenes are a negative inclusion matters not in this case as I was only using Halo 3 as a point of reference. Only someone with an agenda would view such posts as "fud".yeah, most of them are 1 to 5 minutes long, some of them are just seconds long.I was a bit off. According to Bungie, there are 41 minutes of cutscenes (total) in Halo 3.whatdog.gifNobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
Guys, good job on spotting Dark1X's Sfud so promptly.
What the fuck? Sfud? I was correcting someone on the notion that MGS4 would only contain 90 minutes of cutscenes total by pointing out the total length of the cutscenes in Halo 3. Only someone with an agenda would view such posts as "fud".
I really don't think there will be 90-minute cutscenes. Ryan (and I think some others like TTP on GAF) have already said that the longest one is closer to 60 minutes, and it's probably the final cutscene.What a fucking world.
I'm not sure why anyone would be shocked by this though. Isn't this what MGS tards want, long ass cinematics to present the cornball story?do not call me a tard.
I'm not sure why anyone would be shocked by this though. Isn't this what MGS tards want, long ass cinematics to present the cornball story?It's all about scale, I suppose.
i dunno, but i had to listen to an assload of codec in mgs1 :'(That is true, but codec is slightly different because you can skip the spoken dialog and just read. I always do this, and while I hate the long codec conversations too, at least I can bang them out in a minute or two. Cutscenes are either watch, or skip, which sucks if you're interested in the story, but not a 10 minute speech on nuclear proliferation.
What the fuck? Sfud? I was correcting someone on the notion that MGS4 would only contain 90 minutes of cutscenes total by pointing out the total length of the cutscenes in Halo 3. I only used Halo 3 as an example due to the fact that Bungie specifically commented on the total length of the cutscenes. Whether or not you believe lengthy cutscenes are a negative inclusion matters not in this case as I was only using Halo 3 as a point of reference. Only someone with an agenda would view such posts as "fud".yeah, most of them are 1 to 5 minutes long, some of them are just seconds long.I was a bit off. According to Bungie, there are 41 minutes of cutscenes (total) in Halo 3.whatdog.gifNobody would even bat an eye if there was a total of 90 minutes of cutscenes in MGS4. It's the norm in japanese games. But ONE 90 minute cutscene boggles the mind.There's going to be more than 90 minutes of cutscenes, of that there is no doubt (I believe Halo 3 was noted as having almost an hour or something). There are going to be a LOT of cutscenes. I simply doubt that there will be multiple 90 minute scenes. I wouldn't mind if the ending were 90 minutes, though. :P
I hope that is a typo because sitting through a 1.5 hour long cutscene = WTF.
Guys, good job on spotting Dark1X's Sfud so promptly.
i get a headache from reading just about every gaf mgs thread nowadays. Right now the mgs obsessed are discussing whether a guy (Matt Leone) who hasn't played much of the series before 4 has the right to be on the review crew. the way these people treat that franchise, it's scary.MGS threads there are unreadable. The game cannot be discussed, only fellated, and even then, if you don't fellate it right, you will probably get yelled at and possibly banned.
i get a headache from reading just about every gaf mgs thread nowadays. Right now the mgs obsessed are discussing whether a guy (Matt Leone) who hasn't played much of the series before 4 has the right to be on the review crew. the way these people treat that franchise, it's scary. 'skip, can you tell us how much he's played of the trilogy?' :lol
yep. even stating that Twin Snakes was anything less than an abortion will get you a certain visit from the ever present ssx
'Twin Snakes sucked because they messed with Snake's characterization and portrayed him like a super hero'
I think the set-up they are doing seems remarkably sensible for being EGM. A guy who has played lots of MGS, and a dude who hasn't. That sounds like it should make for a good combined review, right? I guess they are concerned that the game is going to be "underrated", but that's a bit strange. If someone who isn't well versed in MGS myth and lore can or can not get into the game, that's actually valuable information and actually serves well as a buyer's guides. Which is what these reviews should, first and foremost, be about. Not ego pieces, not fanboy reports, but buyer's guides.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11276397&postcount=2i get a headache from reading just about every gaf mgs thread nowadays. Right now the mgs obsessed are discussing whether a guy (Matt Leone) who hasn't played much of the series before 4 has the right to be on the review crew. the way these people treat that franchise, it's scary.MGS threads there are unreadable. The game cannot be discussed, only fellated, and even then, if you don't fellate it right, you will probably get yelled at and possibly banned.
I'm not sure why anyone would be shocked by this though. Isn't this what MGS tards want, long ass cinematics to present the cornball story?
should have asked about the superior 360(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
should have asked about the superior 360(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
That shit is amazing. You play it too. Respect.http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11276397&postcount=2i get a headache from reading just about every gaf mgs thread nowadays. Right now the mgs obsessed are discussing whether a guy (Matt Leone) who hasn't played much of the series before 4 has the right to be on the review crew. the way these people treat that franchise, it's scary.MGS threads there are unreadable. The game cannot be discussed, only fellated, and even then, if you don't fellate it right, you will probably get yelled at and possibly banned.
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
should have asked about the superior 360(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
MGStards went crazy over that comment.:tbslol I didn't even notice, holy shit
lol - i forgot all about that.
should have asked about the superior 360(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
(http://opa-ages.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/HippoLOLSmall.gif)
Can I be D’artagnan? I realise I'll just be hanging around like a third (fourth?) wheel, but it's the only way I'm going to get laid.
the xfag emperor is just eatin sandwiches , i need to recharge my batteries for the long summer/winter of hate.
It's a marathon, you can't just spit the bile all the time, you need to let there be calm so when the lol-cano erupts, then it's more effective.
according to a few people who have actually played the game, none of the cutscenes come close to 90 minutes. people on gaf say the longest ~60 minutes which is the ending.
shouldn't be that surprising to you really.according to a few people who have actually played the game, none of the cutscenes come close to 90 minutes. people on gaf say the longest ~60 minutes which is the ending.
Oh that sounds reasonable.....
God I hate this game.