wicko

@trickyd

I just find it funny that we can understand why others don't play inverted, but they can't for the life of them figure out why we do.

Honestly I think the difference is in how we conceptualize shooters. Players who play inverted see it as moving a camera in 3D space, non-inverted might conceptualize it as moving a reticle on a 2D plane.

@Vidikron Neither do I, sounds like a lot of people think they know how a futuristic ship would react when damaged by a bunch of missles. Personal experience, I'm sure..

If learning to code for the PS3 is *that* important to you, invest in a PS3 slim for games. Yeah, it sucks that they are taking it away, but really if you're learning to code for PS3 for practical reasons, spending an extra 300 is a good investment.

I underwent something similar when I wanted to do iPhone programming. Sure there are ways to do it on Windows but they are less reliable and not officially supported. So I bought a macbook to do it instead.

It's not the end of the world.

Well, there are some differences. Linear level design can be good when the designers take advantage of height or have some interesting battlefields, in ME 2 it was always the same crate or wall you hid behind, with most of the battlefields being ultimately flat. At least with Uncharted you could climb things and take the battle upwards, and there would be some nice hooks in each level that made them enjoyable.

With FFXIII not being a shooter, different design ideas need to be considered, exploration is pretty much a requirement to keep it interesting.

It sounds more like he's completely missing the reason behind the complaints. It's not really about the linear story, its about the linear level design.

I personally couldn't care less if the story had branching paths or not, but nearly straight levels gets boring very quickly. Even mass effect suffered from this, all the fights were pretty straight forward with hardly any variation in design. But they made up for that with a good story that you can do at your own leisure.

@chibi chaingun

A netbook can do far more than this thing.. that is for sure. Especially the netbooks with ion videocards.

You know you can use 7200RPM harddrives in your PS3.. I currently have a 320GB Seagate that spins at 7200 installed in mine right now.

I think I would be most interested in this, not to pirate, but for better media support and copying my discs to the harddrive. Although, technically I'd be happier if Sony could do this on their own, I'd rather not mod my PS3 and risk getting banned from PSN or something.

Okay, no more "cut from movies because it can't fit on a disc BS". Movies have cut scenes and deleted scenes to reduce screen time. A quick google search for "scenes cut reduce run time" will show you a couple wikipedia entries for movies explaining why some of the scenes were cut in those movies (one of the should be fight club). A good example would probably be the Lord of the Rings series, considering there were huge chunks taken out, but when you bought the DVDs they added all the scenes back into the movie, and they were all polished like every other scene.

Also, remember this article? http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/01/carmack-rage-to-look-worse-on-360-if-limited-to-two-dvds/
Joystiq themselves reference the fee for multiple discs. If thats not enough proof for you I'm sure you can find a direct quote from id or information about the fee elsewhere.

And some of us DO have jobs in the industry, and we know its very unlikely an *entire games worth* of content will be cut because it didn't click with the rest of the game. Remember this game was in development for a very long time, and on the PS3 far before the 360. There have been articles about SE using a dual layer blu-ray disc for the game. So, 50GB on PS3 (well, actually less because of sony security software and other stuff, I don't know the exact value but probably a GB or 2), and ~25GB for 3 dual layer discs (minus about 1 to 1.5 GB per disc for the same reason as Sony).

It's not like developers start going crazy and developing a whole ton of shit without considering how much storage they'll need. It's a waste of development costs having to develop and then cut all this stuff, but they are banking on making up for it with 360 software sales.

It's entirely possible this stuff will be used for DLC, and not be a complete waste. But to say it has nothing to do with storage is naive.

Having worked on a pretty big title for the 360 (it was also multiplatform) they were refusing to ignore a pretty small and in my opinion insignificant TCR violation that some of their own exclusives didn't pass. I honestly can't understand why they didn't let it go and neither could the programmers, so I can see with confidence it is entirely possible they didn't allow it.

To be honest, I think SE approached MS about FFXIII being on the console and not the other way around. And if thats the case, then its also possible that they would have less leverage on things like this.

I wouldn't blame MS, but I'd blame SE for being greedy bastards.

However the # of discs is definitely a factor in what gets cut and what doesn't. Don't try to pretend that the 360 isn't hampered by the limited amount of space on a dual layer DVD. MS chose to go with a DVD drive instead of HD-DVD or BluRay because of costs. The 360 would not have been as cheap as it was and they wouldn't have gained as much of a lead on the PS3. They did it to make more money, simple as that. It is clear that blu-ray offers an advantage that developers will make use of, and to claim otherwise, you have either not thought this through very well, or you're a fanboy.