krypt0nian
Banned
missAran said:
Totally agree with this post. Especially the name thing: "360" is no more goofy than "Gamecube", or if you really think about it "Playstation" is plain stupid.
We're used to all 3 now.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
360 revealed - (no pics yet)
- Thread starter jedimike
- Start date
Totally agree with this post. Especially the name thing: "360" is no more goofy than "Gamecube", or if you really think about it "Playstation" is plain stupid.
We're used to all 3 now.
lachesis
Member
I hate that font, whatever it is. (I also am a passionate hater of PS2 font too...) I kinda wished they would go to another font for their names.
Personally, I liked the clean type of (Bank Gothic-ish) GC's font. DC's clean serif font was also elegant. Original PSX logo font was also good - but I just cannot stand that psudo-techiesque PS2 font and Xbox font. Too... childish in some ways, although I have to admit that it had some initial impact, but it wore out pretty quickly - for me at least.
lachesis
Personally, I liked the clean type of (Bank Gothic-ish) GC's font. DC's clean serif font was also elegant. Original PSX logo font was also good - but I just cannot stand that psudo-techiesque PS2 font and Xbox font. Too... childish in some ways, although I have to admit that it had some initial impact, but it wore out pretty quickly - for me at least.
lachesis
kaching said:
I'm not trying to be a MS sympathizer... I'm just trying to look at it from MS's point-of-view, a dev's point-of-view, and a consumer point-of-view. It takes all 3 to make things work.
The hard drive in Xbox was a huge selling point. It allowed devs to do things on Xbox that simply couldn't be done anywhere else. It fit everyones needs. However, it was not perfect. What happens when your Xbox dies? What if I want to give my friend my Ninja Gaiden save file? The hard drive also had limitations. Now MS has different needs, but they still have to appeal to the consumer and the developer.
The devs want a scratchpad, the consumer wants storage space, and MS wants a cheaper solution. Now the solution comes in many forms. Flash drives, USB ports, home networked PC. That solves the problem for the consumers and MS. I am quite sure that MS has also addressed the developers as well.
the xbox HDD baiscally has 4 writable areas. the save game memory, and 3 1gig cache areas.
Any game can write whatever it wants to the savegame memory, but it cant use that memory for anything other than save games.
The 3 caches are just that - a cache. nothing that gets copied there is guaranteed to be there the next time you load the game. if you play 3 other different games between games of halo then any data it loaded into there definately wont be present as the 3 other games will have cached data there.
As far as im aware when a game requests a file load the xbox reads it from the DVD and automaically caches it to the HDD in the current one of the 3 caches that the game is using. after that, any subsequent loads of that same file will come from the HDD rather than the disk (therefore being faster) - but the game has to be able to cope with it coming from the DVD rather than the HDD because it might not be on the HDD when it needs it
now, admittedly (having thought about this a bit more in regard to your particular example) its very possible that bungy run through a whole load of files at the start of halo, loading them into memory and freeing them again to force the xbox to read them from the DVD and cache them onto the HDD, and that would certainly help to speed up all subsequent loads. However, the next time you play halo it will have to do it all again if the cache isnt there because some other game has used it so the benefits are not permenant and the long loads at the start are quite a trade off (a bit of google searching seems to show that the long loads are also present if you run the game entirely from HDD via a chipped xbox and a backed up copy so im not sure if this is even the case..)
As you can see, this means that games cant really make use of the harddrive for very much at all, which is why i think that with the new xbox it wont be an issue. older games will still work fine (and will benefit from the new machines faster DVD drive, as i tried to point out to bill gates ghost, so wont appear to lose the benefit of the cache and might even load faster on average) and new games can just be organised so that they dont need it, and if its there they just use it automatically without the developer needing to make the concious decision to support the feature
oops - didnt see your second post before i started writing my long reply
It could indeed be the case, it appears that the levels in halo 2 are actually single large files (again, google is my friend here) along the lines of a "pak" file. If this is the case then the first long load might indeed be fetching the whole level file to the HDD to allow faster loading from then on. If that is the case tho then it makes the whole texture-glitch issue even more bizzare as they should be loading everything from the HDD and not the DVD drive!
Having said that, i cant really see why they would need to do it this way. Many, many games that use level streaming on other platforms cope just fine without the need for any HDD cache and there are not long load times between levels in halo so when are they caching the them to the HDD?
Be aware that you may be wrong
Care to elaborate? if not here, then via PM? - i've been thinking about this quite a bit this evening actually and the more i think about it the more im coming to realise that my idea that its automatic could well be very flawed..
for example - If there is only 750meg per partion then surely any one game is gonna end up reading more from the disk than could be cached. so how does it then decide what should be cached and what shouldnt? etc
I still hold that not having the HDD doesnt magically mean certain game features are not possible, and i certainly dont thin any game this gen has done something that could only be done with the HDD in the xbox.. but i'm happy to admit im wrong on the auto-cache idea!
element said:Jesiatha, isn't it entertaining to read how people think the Xbox works
Hey, i'm just making guesses off of second hand knowledge from the mod scene. I might be able to give a more definitive answer, but Microsoft keeps ignoring my requests to get an open source development kit from them
ok, further research (i love google) proves i am wrong in some of what i believed - it is up to individual titles to manage the 750mb utility data storage regions of the xbox hard drive. Titles can choose whether they want an empty area, to automatically mount data to this area or to preserve any data that was there from a previous game (although this is obviously not guaranteed to be there). This would mean that if xbox 2 is to be backwards compatible it will require at least 1 750mb area of memory (either HDD, flash or RAM) for this functionality to still work in xbox games.
It also appears that games can use persistant storage (ie the save game area of the HDD) to store their own file structures etc which is something i was not aware of previously.. and which obviously changes things quite a bit!
I still dont think a lack of HDD will be a problem, as long as it is replaced with some equivelent amount of flash RAM or similar to recreate this functionality, but its clearly not as cut and dried as i had previously imagined!
so, in conclusion, er.. i take back some of my statements, but still stand by my argument that not having a HDD will not somehow make xbox 2 inferior to xbox
(/me makes mental note to check things more thoroughly before arguing in future)
It also appears that games can use persistant storage (ie the save game area of the HDD) to store their own file structures etc which is something i was not aware of previously.. and which obviously changes things quite a bit!
I still dont think a lack of HDD will be a problem, as long as it is replaced with some equivelent amount of flash RAM or similar to recreate this functionality, but its clearly not as cut and dried as i had previously imagined!
so, in conclusion, er.. i take back some of my statements, but still stand by my argument that not having a HDD will not somehow make xbox 2 inferior to xbox
(/me makes mental note to check things more thoroughly before arguing in future)
Ghost of Bill Gates
Banned
ninge said:ok, further research (i love google) proves i am wrong in some of what i believed - it is up to individual titles to manage the 750mb utility data storage regions of the xbox hard drive. Titles can choose whether they want an empty area, to automatically mount data to this area or to preserve any data that was there from a previous game (although this is obviously not guaranteed to be there). This would mean that if xbox 2 is to be backwards compatible it will require at least 1 750mb area of memory (either HDD, flash or RAM) for this functionality to still work in xbox games.
It also appears that games can use persistant storage (ie the save game area of the HDD) to store their own file structures etc which is something i was not aware of previously.. and which obviously changes things quite a bit!
I still dont think a lack of HDD will be a problem, as long as it is replaced with some equivelent amount of flash RAM or similar to recreate this functionality, but its clearly not as cut and dried as i had previously imagined!
so, in conclusion, er.. i take back some of my statements, but still stand by my argument that not having a HDD will not somehow make xbox 2 inferior to xbox
(/me makes mental note to check things more thoroughly before arguing in future)
I like a person who admits when they're wrong..I thought those days were long gone.
anyways, I stand by my statement that a lack of a hard drive will be a mistake.. but since games like The Elder Scrolls IV:Oblivion have been announce there have to be some kind of massive storage device.
As far as I'm concerned, the name 'Xbox 360°' is a disaster. It's cumbersome in conversation (try saying it out loud a few times), and it doesn't lend itself well to a shorthand reading. (You can read 'Playstation 2' as 'PS2', for example, but how the heck are you supposed to shorten 'three-sixty'? 
)
Worse than that, though, is the fact that this makes Microsoft look like they lack confidence in the product. Every time I see 'Xbox 360°', I imagine some desperate guy in Marketing saying, 'How can we call this the Xbox 2 when Sony is releasing the Playstation 3? People will think the PS3 is more advanced! We've gotta get a 3 into the name of our product too, no matter what!' Anyone who's familiar with the Xbox (which is most people) knows that was their first console, and that this will be their second. IMO, they'd be better off just calling it 'Xbox 2' rather than the forced-sounding 'Xbox 360°'.
)Worse than that, though, is the fact that this makes Microsoft look like they lack confidence in the product. Every time I see 'Xbox 360°', I imagine some desperate guy in Marketing saying, 'How can we call this the Xbox 2 when Sony is releasing the Playstation 3? People will think the PS3 is more advanced! We've gotta get a 3 into the name of our product too, no matter what!' Anyone who's familiar with the Xbox (which is most people) knows that was their first console, and that this will be their second. IMO, they'd be better off just calling it 'Xbox 2' rather than the forced-sounding 'Xbox 360°'.
Well, yeah, nothing's perfect. The question is whether we're heading closer to perfection here...jedimike said:
As far as I've seen, conversation around Xbox2 is still assuming some amount of fixed storage for save games, so that's still a potential issue. It can be solved by doing two things that have nothing to do with eliminating an HDD: 1)Make sure XB2 memory cards are of decent capacity to handle any XB2 game save file and 2) require that devs must support both the fixed storage unit AND memory card for their XB2 game saves.
How is that a better solution than a built-in hdd for consumers? You now ask them to cobble together their own solution which won't be as elegant or as consistently standardized as a single, high-capacity, fixed-storage solution which they can get as part of a variety of other CE devices these days. And while I'm sure that MS will address the issues this presents with developers, I think you are greatly overestimating the extent to which they will render the issues involved moot. Chant XNA all you want, it won't change the fact that the various alternatives to fixed storage that you list are disparate in a number of ways that will make it a challenge for devs to support all of them consistently.
HDD or big ass memory card some games like Team Ninjas cannot be transferred to any Xbox. They're keyed to one Xbox and one Xbox only. If the dev doesn't want you moving the game save then the architecture of the console doesn't matter. Try and move your DOAEBV game save. Ain't gonna happen.
Ghost said:
Calling the system '360' doesn't exactly play on the strength of the Xbox brand, though. From what I gather, that's why the system's been named 'Xbox 360' in the first place, rather than the catchier 'Xenon'. Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, I still think it's an awful name. I just hope someone at MS has a change of heart before it's set in stone. =/
fse
Member
Matt IGN:
I have high hopes for Too Human regardless of what next-generation console it appears on. I've formed a theory about the game based on some observations and comments made by company president Denis Dyack in interviews. As you probably know, Silicon Knights collectively believes that games are art, one day destined to replace movies as the ultimate entertainment. This is also a developer that believes in high-end technology as an integral tool in creating realistic, thoughtful software. Meanwhile, I happen to know that Denis adores massively multiplayer online games. I could be wrong on this -- perhaps I'll live to eat my words -- but I'll go ahead and make a guess that Silicon Knights has chosen Xbox 360 as the platform for Too Human. It just seems like the logical fit for the following reason, which is that I believe the game has crossed genres into the massively multiplayer online realm. Microsoft with Xbox Live has the best console-based online network, period, and its next console is going to be plenty capable in the technology department, too.
I have high hopes for Too Human regardless of what next-generation console it appears on. I've formed a theory about the game based on some observations and comments made by company president Denis Dyack in interviews. As you probably know, Silicon Knights collectively believes that games are art, one day destined to replace movies as the ultimate entertainment. This is also a developer that believes in high-end technology as an integral tool in creating realistic, thoughtful software. Meanwhile, I happen to know that Denis adores massively multiplayer online games. I could be wrong on this -- perhaps I'll live to eat my words -- but I'll go ahead and make a guess that Silicon Knights has chosen Xbox 360 as the platform for Too Human. It just seems like the logical fit for the following reason, which is that I believe the game has crossed genres into the massively multiplayer online realm. Microsoft with Xbox Live has the best console-based online network, period, and its next console is going to be plenty capable in the technology department, too.
FortNinety
Member
Theyre working on it, said our source.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Pedigree Chum
Banned
The short form for XBox 360 should be X360. I like how that sounds, whish it would be the official name.
StarscreamLSU
Member
Pedigree Chum said:
That's what I've been using, although it kind of sounds like something James Bond would be going after in a movie.
super-heated plasma
Member
I think most people will stick to saying XBOX, or 360, independently from each other.
artful_dodger
Member
I liked Xbox Next...