193 réponses à ce sujet

[Drowsy0106]

Vahe wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

You fools!!!

Stop trying to rationalize this with your compressions and other technical mumbo jumbo!!!

START PANICKING!!!! FREAAAAAAAAAAAK OUT!!!
AAHGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Agreed.

 

[Skellimancer]

Its a lot smaller because you don't have DLC yet.

[anyoldname]

ErebUs890 wrote...

Well, we've established it's a compression thing, but what's this about people saying DA2 is shorter? I beat DA:O in like 18 hours.

Nonsense - nothing is established by someone saying "compression". Something would be established if someone said: the same texture that was used in DA:O is 1/3rd the size in DA:2 because of a new compression algorithm and textures account for 50% of the overall size on disk. That's what "establishing" something means.

A few posters chanting "compression" like a mantra doesn't establish anything. Firstly, the OP presented the file size on disk, after unpacking. That already removes one layer of compression. Secondly, compression only normally changes so much. Moving from MP3 to Ogg as an example, will shave off a few percent of a file size for the same audio quality, but it doesn't reduce it to a third. So unless someone here can cite evidence that a new compression technique is used that has a truly massive effect on file size (on disk), then repeatedly posting "compression" is no rebuttal at all.

Similarly, repeating that "we already know it's shorter" doesn't invalidate anything either. if you got shot in the foot, you wouldn't stop being in pain just because someone told you, "yes, we already know about it". The OP just posted facts. Facts are not something you can point at and go "false - ignore".

[Cadaveth]

Drowsy0106 wrote...

Vahe wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

You fools!!!

Stop trying to rationalize this with your compressions and other technical mumbo jumbo!!!

START PANICKING!!!! FREAAAAAAAAAAAK OUT!!!
AAHGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Agreed.

 

Pretty damn good compression if you can go from 18GB to 5GB.

Just sayin'. Maybe they've managed to create some next-gen compression tool, who knows. Maybe Clonetunnels and Clonecaves have something to do with this too.

[aries1001]

On my way through the internet I found this.

http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=1


Here's a relevant quote I find.

The early hours of the game primarily take place within the city of Kirkwall, a population center that covers more virtual ground than Origins’ Denerim. That already increased size is made even bigger by the new ability to go to the map and visit any area of the city at night as well. Certain story events and quests will only be available by exploring Kirkwall at night.

As you can see, it seems that some of the re-used areas will be - Kirkwall at night.

As for the size of the game, it is great that Bioware has found a way to compress data. Games were, as I see it, getting delusions of grandeur

edit: link provided.

Modifié par aries1001, 06 mars 2011 - 12:11 .

[Goldrock]

yeah good point i think da:O is about 7 gigs without all the dlc and another note they changed the art style so they can multi platform it smoother than the first one so that alone problably keeps it less im sure there a good 30 + hours of game play in the game bioware has yet to let me down on game legnths.

[Moondoggie]

anyoldname wrote...

Nonsense - nothing is established by someone saying "compression". Something would be established if someone said: the same texture that was used in DA:O is 1/3rd the size in DA:2 because of a new compression algorithm and textures account for 50% of the overall size on disk. That's what "establishing" something means.

A few posters chanting "compression" like a mantra doesn't establish anything. Firstly, the OP presented the file size on disk, after unpacking. That already removes one layer of compression. Secondly, compression only normally changes so much. Moving from MP3 to Ogg as an example, will shave off a few percent of a file size for the same audio quality, but it doesn't reduce it to a third. So unless someone here can cite evidence that a new compression technique is used that has a truly massive effect on file size (on disk), then repeatedly posting "compression" is no rebuttal at all.

Similarly, repeating that "we already know it's shorter" doesn't invalidate anything either. if you got shot in the foot, you wouldn't stop being in pain just because someone told you, "yes, we already know about it". The OP just posted facts. Facts are not something you can point at and go "false - ignore".

[Moondoggie]

I really don't get the whole fuss about file size at all. It's like some people feel the need to push certain aspects of Dragon Age II to get a reaction and that is rarther sad. Can't we all just wait until a bunch of people play the game to get a realistic game legnth expectation rarther than pre judge the legnth of the game based on the size of the game in GB? the file size does not have anything to do with the game legnth at all considering some games with small sizes less than a couple of GB can offer hours of gameplay while Mirrors Edge which is 8GB can be finished in 90 minutes.

Wait for the game to come out and to be played then we can all look at the completetion times and round it off to an average legnth in hours.

Modifié par Moondoggie, 06 mars 2011 - 12:20 .

[Dangerfoot]

5 gigs!? Might as well put it on a floppy disc!!!

[monstertrucks]

Isn't it because of your save games and DLCs that make DA:O a much bigger file??

[PhrosniteAgainROFL]

Every time I install a game on my PC I check how big the game is.
Dragon Age: Origins - 15GB(withtout DLC and expansion)
Dragon Age 2 not only is shorter in half but it uses different art style which can save GB. So the game being 5 GB(7GB with texture pack) is nothing suprising.

[anyoldname]

Moondoggie wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Nonsense - nothing is established by someone saying "compression". Something would be established if someone said: the same texture that was used in DA:O is 1/3rd the size in DA:2 because of a new compression algorithm and textures account for 50% of the overall size on disk. That's what "establishing" something means.

A few posters chanting "compression" like a mantra doesn't establish anything. Firstly, the OP presented the file size on disk, after unpacking. That already removes one layer of compression. Secondly, compression only normally changes so much. Moving from MP3 to Ogg as an example, will shave off a few percent of a file size for the same audio quality, but it doesn't reduce it to a third. So unless someone here can cite evidence that a new compression technique is used that has a truly massive effect on file size (on disk), then repeatedly posting "compression" is no rebuttal at all.

Similarly, repeating that "we already know it's shorter" doesn't invalidate anything either. if you got shot in the foot, you wouldn't stop being in pain just because someone told you, "yes, we already know about it". The OP just posted facts. Facts are not something you can point at and go "false - ignore".

Well you're in the discussion to, so I don't get your point unless you're arguing that everyone in this thread is a loser, which isn't very nice.

[Rune-Chan]

monstertrucks wrote...

Isn't it because of your save games and DLCs that make DA:O a much bigger file??

That is the first thing that came to mind for me.

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Really? We all know it's shorter, but part of the size difference is due to compression. Big whoop - there was even a Chris Priestly post explaining it. File size is not indicative of total gameplay time.

Indeed. Fallout New Vegas is considerably smaller than Fallout 3 in terms of GB size on the Xbox 360, but there is very little difference in the games size or length.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 06 mars 2011 - 01:14 .

[Yojimboo]

anyoldname wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Nonsense - nothing is established by someone saying "compression". Something would be established if someone said: the same texture that was used in DA:O is 1/3rd the size in DA:2 because of a new compression algorithm and textures account for 50% of the overall size on disk. That's what "establishing" something means.

A few posters chanting "compression" like a mantra doesn't establish anything. Firstly, the OP presented the file size on disk, after unpacking. That already removes one layer of compression. Secondly, compression only normally changes so much. Moving from MP3 to Ogg as an example, will shave off a few percent of a file size for the same audio quality, but it doesn't reduce it to a third. So unless someone here can cite evidence that a new compression technique is used that has a truly massive effect on file size (on disk), then repeatedly posting "compression" is no rebuttal at all.

Similarly, repeating that "we already know it's shorter" doesn't invalidate anything either. if you got shot in the foot, you wouldn't stop being in pain just because someone told you, "yes, we already know about it". The OP just posted facts. Facts are not something you can point at and go "false - ignore".

Well you're in the discussion to, so I don't get your point unless you're arguing that everyone in this thread is a loser, which isn't very nice.

You made a constructive post in a pool of fansharks, what did you expect?

[anyoldname]

Moondoggie wrote...

I really don't get the whole fuss about file size at all. It's like some people feel the need to push certain aspects of Dragon Age II to get a reaction and that is rarther sad. Can't we all just wait until a bunch of people play the game to get a realistic game legnth expectation rarther than pre judge the legnth of the game based on the size of the game in GB? the file size does not have anything to do with the game legnth at all considering some games with small sizes less than a couple of GB can offer hours of gameplay while Mirrors Edge which is 8GB can be finished in 90 minutes.

Wait for the game to come out and to be played then we can all look at the completetion times and round it off to an average legnth in hours.

It's a bit silly to say that file size has nothing to do with game length for several reasons.

For one, we're presumably comparing like with like. If we comparing a 5GB action RPG with modern graphics vs. a 4GB side-scrolling shoot-em-up from the late Eighties, then you could say that the latter one, though smaller, is massively longer. But we're comparing two similar styles of game that use contemporary technology. So yes, a big difference in the size of the files does indicate something. It's disingenuous to pretend it doesn't.

Secondly, the question of what the file size indicates is unresolved. It could indicate any or the following for example:
A radical and staggering change in compression technology.
Different stages of the game make significant re-use of locations.
Reduced game length
Reduced dialogue

Or other things. Note that there are very few possibilities indicated by a substantial reduction in file size that we, the players, would consider a good thing.

[heretica]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Hey genius, did you forget you have awakening and all the DLC installed?

Fail.

+ toolset

[anyoldname]

Yojimboo wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Nonsense - nothing is established by someone saying "compression". Something would be established if someone said: the same texture that was used in DA:O is 1/3rd the size in DA:2 because of a new compression algorithm and textures account for 50% of the overall size on disk. That's what "establishing" something means.

A few posters chanting "compression" like a mantra doesn't establish anything. Firstly, the OP presented the file size on disk, after unpacking. That already removes one layer of compression. Secondly, compression only normally changes so much. Moving from MP3 to Ogg as an example, will shave off a few percent of a file size for the same audio quality, but it doesn't reduce it to a third. So unless someone here can cite evidence that a new compression technique is used that has a truly massive effect on file size (on disk), then repeatedly posting "compression" is no rebuttal at all.

Similarly, repeating that "we already know it's shorter" doesn't invalidate anything either. if you got shot in the foot, you wouldn't stop being in pain just because someone told you, "yes, we already know about it". The OP just posted facts. Facts are not something you can point at and go "false - ignore".

Well you're in the discussion too, so I don't get your point unless you're arguing that everyone in this thread is a loser, which isn't very nice.

You made a constructive post in a pool of fansharks, what did you expect?

I expected people to debate my post on its merits and reconsider their opinions in light of that.

Modifié par anyoldname, 06 mars 2011 - 01:18 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

Weird.

DAO over twice as big as DA2.
Mass effect 1 and two smaller then origins and bigger then DA2.
Wonder how small ME3 will be.

[Yojimboo]

anyoldname wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

I really don't get the whole fuss about file size at all. It's like some people feel the need to push certain aspects of Dragon Age II to get a reaction and that is rarther sad. Can't we all just wait until a bunch of people play the game to get a realistic game legnth expectation rarther than pre judge the legnth of the game based on the size of the game in GB? the file size does not have anything to do with the game legnth at all considering some games with small sizes less than a couple of GB can offer hours of gameplay while Mirrors Edge which is 8GB can be finished in 90 minutes.

Wait for the game to come out and to be played then we can all look at the completetion times and round it off to an average legnth in hours.

It's a bit silly to say that file size has nothing to do with game length for several reasons.

For one, we're presumably comparing like with like. If we comparing a 5GB action RPG with modern graphics vs. a 4GB side-scrolling shoot-em-up from the late Eighties, then you could say that the latter one, though smaller, is massively longer. But we're comparing two similar styles of game that use contemporary technology. So yes, a big difference in the size of the files does indicate something. It's disingenuous to pretend it doesn't.

Secondly, the question of what the file size indicates is unresolved. It could indicate any or the following for example:
A radical and staggering change in compression technology.
Different stages of the game make significant re-use of locations.
Reduced game length
Reduced dialogue

Or other things. Note that there are very few possibilities indicated by a substantial reduction in file size that we, the players, would consider a good thing.

Different stages of the game make significant re-use of locations.
Reduced game length
Reduced dialogue

This happend.

A radical and staggering change in compression technology.

switching from mp3 to ogg dosn't make that much a difference, or did Origins use .wav?

[AFCommando]

Saibh wrote...

You could do just a teeny bit of research about why.

DA2 is 40 hours, DAO is 70 hours.

that was tough.


10. It’s Shorter, But Not Short
I finished Dragon Age II, along with every sidequest, in approximately 40 hours. While that isn’t the 70 hours it took me to play through Origins, it’s still a large chunk of time, and I certainly didn’t feel cheated by the amount of content.

http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2

Modifié par AFCommando, 06 mars 2011 - 01:21 .

[Abel Coyle]

DominusVita wrote...

Size isn't everything. o:

Exactly, the gigabyte size does not necessarily have a set correlation on replayability. Please keep your pitchforks in the closet until March 8th. Then we can go nuts.

Fine! But i refuse to put out my torch 

[shaneho78]

I'm not worried about the length of gameplay at all. Backgrounds will be less detailed for sure.

[Rompa87]

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

[borelocin]

Logically, PS:T and BG2 were terrible games because they were much smaller file sizes.

[shaneho78]

Rompa87 wrote...

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

fear mongering