Heavenly Sword packed with 10 GB of sound data
by Ross Miller 
{ Aug 15th 2007 at 2:25PM }
That sizable number includes approximately three and a half hours of music, sound effects and 4,500 lines of dialog. "There's an hour and a half's worth of cut scenes in eleven languages," said SCEE's Garry Taylor.
A dual layer DVD disc has an 8.5 GB capacity; will Sony be touting that its competition couldn't even fit the audio onto their discs? We'd be surprised if they showed restraint.
[Via PS3 Fanboy]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Jerk Face @ Aug 15th 2007 2:29PM
That is actually pretty fucking impressive!
Alex Quinn @ Aug 15th 2007 3:07PM
Impressive on how much spin sony can put on uncompressed audio with 11 different lanuages on the disc.
bak8807 @ Aug 15th 2007 3:12PM
What's even more impressive is that Heavenly Sword was able to generate so much hype when it's so completely average. It's ironic, though, because I'm also excited to play it, if only because there's literally nothing else for me to do on the PS3 besides PS2 games. I guess many others share the same sentiment!
Paul @ Aug 15th 2007 3:20PM
mpeg4
sheesh, this developer should really investigate this little thing called compression. It works pretty darn well for audio.
tlarkin79 @ Aug 15th 2007 3:34PM
What a waste of space. Seriously, the only reason you would need 10 GB of space for audio files is if you aren't using compression. They could have used a fraction of the space and still had great sounding audio if they had used a good compression tool, but instead chose to create a false demand for disc space to try to sell Blu-Ray.
Have fun with your 2X Blu-Ray drive trying to read uncompressed audio files in addition to the other game content, you might just have even longer load times because of it.
JL @ Aug 15th 2007 3:50PM
As a person that loves audio, I think uncompressed audio in my games is very important to me. The difference in resolution is large to someone who has fine ears.
No matter what, compression is always a degradation. If you think that compressing audio/video is a good thing, then you are completely retarded.
I own both systems. I just feel that the PS3 is trying to give me the highest quality of video and sound. The 360, on the other hand is extremely fun to play and has more good games at the moment.
"Have fun with your 2X Blu-Ray drive trying to read uncompressed audio files in addition to the other game content, you might just have even longer load times because of it."
I have actually encountered faster loading times when playing on the PS3. This may not be a fact, but I think its a good example of someone talking out of their ass because they hate a machine.
I love both my systems. Heavenly Sword looks awesome. So does Mass Effect. Video games FTW!
Kye @ Aug 15th 2007 4:38PM
In other words is has 0.9 GB of sound in one language?
The ONLY language you'll ever use!?
And people wonder why I hate Sony?
Abscissa @ Aug 15th 2007 4:50PM
"As a person that loves audio, I think uncompressed audio in my games is very important to me. The difference in resolution is large to someone who has fine ears."
(I'm going to assume you mean "lossy compression" rather than "all compression including lossless". Probably a safe assumption, I imagine.)
Depends how heavily it's compressed. Not all signal degradation is actually perceptible, even to the best ears. And that's assuming a theoretically impossible 100% accuracy in the speakers. Even the best speakers have a certain threshold above which they can no longer provide accurate sound reproduction. And at that threshold, the difference is so minuscule anyway that no human, no matter how well trained, can perceive a difference (the hairs in our inner ears are only so accurate). The only way to perceive such differences would require some sort of cybernetic augmentation.
Please don't take this as an insult, because it isn't intended as such, but anyone who thinks they can tell a difference between, say, a 256kbps vorbis/wma/aac stream (note I didn't say MP3: MP3 sucks) and the uncompressed source is only fooling themselves - a victim of the placebo effect.
To test it, just set up a double-blind test: have someone switch between playing you an uncompressed and high bitrate (say, 256kbps vorbis/wma/aac, or 400-or-so-kbps MP3) version of the same 16/32-bit 44/48 KHz audio clip. Try that for a few different audio clips and see how often you were actually correct. It'll likely be somewhere around 50/50. Incidentally, the same sort of test can be used to see why Monster Cables are a rip-off. Yes, their signal is technically better, but not perceptibly.
An even more interesting test is setting up an A/B switchbox and *telling* someone who believes they can tell a difference that 'A' is a monster cable or uncompressed audio and 'B' is a cheap cable or compressed audio. BUT, don't actually connect the switchbox's cables to anything. Let them switch between A and B and tell you which looks/sounds better. If they don't suspect shenanigans, most people will swear up and down that 'A' looks/sounds better.
Now I'm obviously not saying that all compression is imperceptible. If it's compressed enough, yea, you'll notice. I'm just saying that not all lossy compression is humanly perceptible.
JL @ Aug 15th 2007 5:08PM
@Abscissa
I loved your post and I agree with you 100 percent. The point that I am trying to make is against comments like these:
"sheesh, this developer should really investigate this little thing called compression. It works pretty darn well for audio."
They make it sound as if its stupid to not compress your audio. If you have the space available, why not take full advantage of it by using high resolution audio?
By the way, I can tell the difference between a CD and a 192-256kbps through my home audio setup, but not through my car stereo or my computer speakers. It only makes sense to have high res audio if you have a system that can really exploit it.
Thanks for your educated response.
Abscissa @ Aug 15th 2007 5:18PM
@JL: Thanks for your thoughtful response to my response ;) It's nice to debate with other level-headed people.
In response to your comment of:
"They make it sound as if its stupid to not compress your audio. If you have the space available, why not take full advantage of it by using high resolution audio?"
I fully agree that you might as well use it if you have it. Why bother compressing if you don't need to right? (Well, except that it might help disc access times.) My main concern though, was of people making the faulty connection that "Well, this game NEEDED to use that much, therefore DVD is antiquated."
BTW, I made another response to one of your other posts further down. Please don't take it harshly.
colin @ Aug 15th 2007 5:28PM
@Abscissa,
well put, sir.
i think its crazy to pay more than the cheapest you can spend on audio/video cables. I did a component video test a while back using Monster Gold RCA, and some RCA from my dad's "hifi" stereo system from 1979. there wasn't even a flicker between the two HD signals
Aberu @ Aug 16th 2007 9:54AM
@Kye: Sometimes, just sometimes, there are people in a region like, oh I don't know, America, that speak more than one language within the region, and would feel more comfortable playing it in another language. Also regions like Europe sometimes share the same version across certain areas without translation, and this will help save the developer money on making a different disc for each country (like Spain, Germany, France, Italy). Think outside of your ass next time please.
Word of the street. @ Aug 15th 2007 2:31PM
Holy Crap The Blu-ray is actually being useful!
Edge @ Aug 15th 2007 2:58PM
Useful to Sony...
This is the strawman they "beat" to justify the current wanton excess of Blu-ray. Blu-ray is NOT necessary... right now. If PS3 lasts for a "10 year life cycle" then it might start to become relevant. But for right now, it is not necessary.
Let me rephrase it. This is like paying money to watch Kaz Hirai wrestle a stuffed toy crocodile into submission.
People need to realize that Sony choose not to promote compressed audio not for some next-gen dogma, but just so it justifies the size of the Blu-ray.
Wake up sheep.
Word of the street. @ Aug 15th 2007 3:11PM
It was kind of a joke.I guess people in the internet lost their sense of humor long time ago.
The1 @ Aug 15th 2007 3:14PM
ALL SOUND and nothing else..... This better be worth my money.
Neebs @ Aug 15th 2007 3:15PM
Useful to people who speak TWELVE LANGUAGES.
Ethan @ Aug 15th 2007 3:43PM
lol...
Hoffer @ Aug 15th 2007 2:35PM
I said this in the ps3fanboy section as well.
I'm curious if this game actually needs 10 GB of space for audio or if they are doing it to justify the need for Blu-ray?? I mean seriously, 10 GB is more than a DVD-9 can even hold.
They bragged the same about how Resistance needed like 22 GB. Yet the game looks no different than any FPS on a DVD-9 disc I've played.
Either way, I have Heavenly Sword on preorder and can't wait to play it.
Kye @ Aug 15th 2007 6:27PM
Thats cuz they needed to render all the things you would never notice.
Like each individual brick being different. And dirt, oh hells yes dirt takes alot of programming, not to mention the super realistic physics.
And clouds, boy...
Ordeith @ Aug 15th 2007 2:42PM
Are we now seeing signs that the PS3 isn't powerful enough to decompress an audio stream and render graphics at the same time?
;)
Jake @ Aug 15th 2007 3:12PM
Oh no you didn't.
Abscissa @ Aug 15th 2007 5:31PM
Oh man, now that's one funny burn. Ouch. (And yes, PS3 fans: I'm well aware it's probably not the actual case. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended to be.)
samfish @ Aug 15th 2007 2:33PM
4,500 lines of dialog? So it's another one of those games with a thousand cut scenes?
Bleh, if true.
samfish @ Aug 15th 2007 2:54PM
Down voted?!
Sheesh, you Sony fanboys are so fickle. I don't like having dozens and dozens of cut scenes in my games. So sue me.
samfish @ Aug 15th 2007 3:16PM
Haha. I can't win.
Word of the street. @ Aug 15th 2007 3:21PM
You think Sony fanboys are bad,try to say anything about MMO without being voted down.
Also there are a lot of sour grapes here and there like radicoon(I remember it because his name rhymes with the word maricon)are voting down everyone.
IMO I would tell you that cutscenes are cool as long as you can skip them by simply pressing X.Really is a pain when you play in hard mode a game with long cutscenes that you cant skip.
bender @ Aug 15th 2007 3:32PM
Don't worry Samfish, I voted you up.
Word of the street. @ Aug 15th 2007 3:47PM
Me too.
Vote down is not cool.
baby sea tuna @ Aug 15th 2007 4:29PM
Me three...but mainly just for nekkid Peach.
samfish @ Aug 15th 2007 5:22PM
And I make it a point to vote up anybody who gives Naked Peach some luvin'.
François @ Aug 15th 2007 8:58PM
4,500 is pretty standard, for this type of next-gen cinematic action game. You have three basic levels of dialogs in an action game: onomatopoeias, or the little vocal sounds such as a character jumping or getting hit; barks, short incidental lines during gameplay such as a character shouting "take this!" or whatever; and actual cutscene dialog. Just the onos and the barks make the number ramp up quite fast. And it's not that much when you realize that a fully-voiced RPG can have something like 200,000 lines of recorded dialog.
Grant @ Aug 15th 2007 2:33PM
i can uncompress all the music on my computer like a jackass and brag about the tremendous amount of space all my audio takes, but common sense dictates that would make me a moron.
MC Hampster @ Aug 15th 2007 3:11PM
Bingo. Sony will continue to beat this drum over and over again. All they're doing is not compressing data. Most of the time this compression would be lossy, but it would be indiscernible by most normal human beings (I'm excluding those 1337 people that buy $500 speaker wire because "it makes a difference").
It's this attitude that lead to the development of high definition formats to begin with. If rather than using the antiquated MPEG-2 standard for video (which is lossy, but still..), producers had moved to MPEG-4, we'd have no problem fitting high definition content on a standard DVD (see downloadable movies on XBLM). While we would need new players, they would have been far, far cheaper and see much faster adoption.
losttoys @ Aug 15th 2007 3:26PM
MC Hampster -
Sony is not tooting their horn in this case. Show me where in the interview that Garry Taylor tooted the Blu-Ray horn, how this game could never come out on another system due to the lack of Blu-Ray.
I have time; I'll wait.
JKPierce @ Aug 15th 2007 3:43PM
They're just saying what's on the damn disc. Everyone's determined to jump up and down over nothing.
Digi Smalls @ Aug 15th 2007 3:52PM
losttoys - the developers of Heavenly Sword are doing this project for Sony.
when else have you ever even heard of asset size on disc when it wasn't from a Sony developer?
its in their Sony development handbook, i know you can't really be that naïve.
.
JL @ Aug 15th 2007 3:59PM
"i can uncompress all the music on my computer like a jackass and brag about the tremendous amount of space all my audio takes, but common sense dictates that would make me a moron."
I use lossless formats when I rip CD's in. I have an external hard drive that I keep them all on. Once you compress a track to say 192kbs, youre never going to get back the quality that the track had in its raw form. This is a simple question of quality. Are you playing this through a high end home theater system or some rinky-dink klipsch computer speaker system? If its the latter, then who the fuck cares. But, if you are like me, and have it going through a high end system, you need lossless or it is going to sound like ass.
Tathar @ Aug 15th 2007 4:38PM
Too bad that MPEG-4's licensing involves so many different companies that it actually makes the format prohibitive to use.
Abscissa @ Aug 15th 2007 5:05PM
"Once you compress a track to say 192kbs, youre never going to get back the quality that the track had in its raw form...But, if you are like me, and have it going through a high end system, you need lossless or it is going to sound like ass."
*OR* you could just move to 320kbps. Or better yet, come out of the 90's and switch from MP3 to something like Vorbis/WMA/AAC. Everyone, compressed audio is not always a 192kbps MP3. Hell even FLAC would cut the size in half, and that's not even lossy at all.
JL @ Aug 15th 2007 5:27PM
Did I say that everything is 192 MP3? Man, I didnt know I couldnt use examples. MP3 is still the most commonly used form of compressed audio, therefore, was a great example. So shut the fuck up.
JL @ Aug 15th 2007 5:30PM
It was taken harshly. But I forgive.
Abscissa @ Aug 15th 2007 10:37PM
"So shut the fuck up." "It was taken harshly."
Heh heh, I see it apparently was ;). No offense taken on my part though.
MP3 is just a pet peeve of mine. I don't like seeing inferior solutions become dominant simply because they have a large mindshare. So MP3 sometimes strikes a nerve with me.
Of course, I didn't mean you couldn't use examples, it's just that your post sounded to me (and I may very well have misread) like there was no middle ground. So I pointed out (however harshly), that you can run compressed audio through a high-end system and have it not sound like ass (great phrase, BTW) as long as it's not too heavily compressed (or uses lossless).
But then, as we already agreed, there's no point in compressing if you don't actually need to, so in the case of Heavenly Sword the point becomes moot.
Grant @ Aug 16th 2007 1:41AM
i said it below, but i'll say it again,
320kbps MP3 is as lossless as your going to get when it comes to compressed music, and the most quality crazy audiophile would be hard pressed to discern it from an uncompressed format on the best quality system.
and it's a 1/3rd of the size.
No one is comparing 128kbps to lossless which is really a joke, people need to realize that even the highest bitrate compressed file is still going to smaller and more efficient.
Pretty much all modern media uses some form of compression, the fact that people are defending lossless formats makes them seem like neandethals. uncompressed audio is like using a monster truck to do your daily commute to the grocery store.
Dahk @ Aug 15th 2007 2:34PM
Jeez 4500 lines of dialog lol.
To be honest and frank, MGS2 (as amazing as it was) had such long insane video clips that dragged out the action longer than it needed to be. They had like 1.5 hours of clips lol.
I personally don't mind it too much, because I LOVE cinematics (even if they're CG), but I know many aren't and would rather continue moving on.
I know this game was slated to bring intense story-telling though, so I'm excited for it. I'm just hoping this insane loads of dialog works out well =).
Crono @ Aug 15th 2007 2:34PM
Uncompressed .wav's FTW!
IlyaG @ Aug 15th 2007 2:44PM
I definitely suspect that they didn't compress their audio correctly.
When you consider that a single DVD can hold as much as 3 hours of high-quality VIDEO data (movie + extras), along with 3 hours of continuous AUDIO data, in numerous languages (all 3 hours each), and numerous commentary tracks (3 hours each), somebody seriously screwed up something, somewhere.
With a game, you shouldn't even need VIDEO files. I don't remember the last time I saw a cutscene that was not rendered in-engine. Modern games are pretty enough to do this now!
Bloo @ Aug 15th 2007 2:34PM
While I'll be taking advantage of that 7.1 uncompressed sound - is it really an advantage if only 1% (if that) of the targeted audience can even use it?
mccomber @ Aug 15th 2007 2:52PM
Simply awesome. The response to this from the anti-bluray camp can be summed up as "Who cares if they're doing it, they aren't doing it right."
As a fan of pointless excess, I say hurrah for 10gb of sound. This may not be a "necessary" use, but the fact that they can do this rocks, and it's just a matter of time before we'll see games that "need" to be on bluray.
Not that some people will ever admit to it.
Abscissa @ Aug 15th 2007 5:18PM
mccomber: The problem is that it comes with a cost of an extra US$200 and slow disc access.