PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed 2-To Install or Not to Install?



PSH_Nagisa
11-12-2009, 09:38 AM
I wondered If Atmon or any of the other Devs or Mods on the Forums could inform me whether it is a good Idea to install AC2 onto my Xbox hard-drive?

I also was wondering about how much space it will take up? (I still have not sprung for the 120GB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif)

Thankyou!

PSH_Nagisa
11-12-2009, 09:38 AM
I wondered If Atmon or any of the other Devs or Mods on the Forums could inform me whether it is a good Idea to install AC2 onto my Xbox hard-drive?

I also was wondering about how much space it will take up? (I still have not sprung for the 120GB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif)

Thankyou!

MrNussbaum
11-12-2009, 09:51 AM
Games are usually between 5 and a half and 8 GB. I install all my games since the feature was introduced, but then again I have the 120 GB hard drive.

If you have other games installed on your hard drive you can always just delete them and re-install them at a later date when you're finished with AC2.

Hade91
11-12-2009, 09:55 AM
Is installing games directly to the HD just supposed to make them less choppy or something? I installed Oblivion some time back but I haven't noticed a huge difference.

PSH_Nagisa
11-12-2009, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrNussbaum:
Games are usually between 5 and a half and 8 GB. I install all my games since the feature was introduced, but then again I have the 120 GB hard drive.

If you have other games installed on your hard drive you can always just delete them and re-install them at a later date when you're finished with AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bought the Xbox when it first came out and as such the only hard-drive available to me was the 20GB. I have never downloaded a game onto my hardrive because of the map-packs/game content that takes up most of my memory space. so I was wondering if they had a solid number and whether the game will run smoother if I install it; seeing as some developers, such as Bungie, recommend not installing the games. However, for Halo I understand that it is because of the multiplayer and that it loads maps directly off the disk.

Morf113
11-12-2009, 10:11 AM
The game is 3,5 GB they said it in some interview (can't remember) I am gonna Install it because of the less waiting.

MrNussbaum
11-12-2009, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSH_Nagisa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrNussbaum:
Games are usually between 5 and a half and 8 GB. I install all my games since the feature was introduced, but then again I have the 120 GB hard drive.

If you have other games installed on your hard drive you can always just delete them and re-install them at a later date when you're finished with AC2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bought the Xbox when it first came out and as such the only hard-drive available to me was the 20GB. I have never downloaded a game onto my hardrive because of the map-packs/game content that takes up most of my memory space. so I was wondering if they had a solid number and whether the game will run smoother if I install it; seeing as some developers, such as Bungie, recommend not installing the games. However, for Halo I understand that it is because of the multiplayer and that it loads maps directly off the disk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I install all my games because of the (completely baseless, just theoretic) belief that if my disc drive isn't running the console won't put off as much heat, hopefully keeping the RROD away. Again, I don't know if this is true on any level.

Atmon
11-12-2009, 10:13 AM
I haven't tried yet guys, mainly because I played from a Devkit, but the Xbox version I saw on DVD works smoothly.

I think that the install to HD feature is just necessary with games suffering from long loading times. Otherwise it's a bonus.

And regarding AC2, you won't have to install it on your HD to enjoy it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gazman16
11-12-2009, 10:19 AM
To be honest I haven't noticed any differences with installed games, I installed Fable II to try to shorten its horrific load times and it did nothing, thought it might help pop-up on GTA IV. Nope. I think its only games that have been built with it in mind.

Kira9001
11-12-2009, 11:19 AM
I hope it wont have Mandatory Install on ps3... Atleast not a big one... AC1 had it, but it's small tho... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

bornforhaze
11-12-2009, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kira9001:
I hope it wont have Mandatory Install on ps3... Atleast not a big one... AC1 had it, but it's small tho... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Its been confirmed that the PS3 version will have to install 2gb on hard drive.

PSH_Nagisa
11-12-2009, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atmon:
I haven't tried yet guys, mainly because I played from a Devkit, but the Xbox version I saw on DVD works smoothly.

I think that the install to HD feature is just necessary with games suffering from long loading times. Otherwise it's a bonus.

And regarding AC2, you won't have to install it on your HD to enjoy it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, Atmon, for your prompt and informative response http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kira9001
11-12-2009, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bornforhaze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kira9001:
I hope it wont have Mandatory Install on ps3... Atleast not a big one... AC1 had it, but it's small tho... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Its been confirmed that the PS3 version will have to install 2gb on hard drive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>okay ty... Atleast it's not 5gb ^^

KZarr
11-12-2009, 01:28 PM
It's only the old games that run faster on HDD. New games are pretty optimized and don't need install on HDD.

An_Idea
11-12-2009, 01:46 PM
i never saw the point of installing them anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif and im still stuck with my 20gb hard drive until i can find a transfer cable so i can use my 60gb

KZarr
11-12-2009, 01:50 PM
Main reason for me is the reduces sound. I still install all the games I have. 120GB HDD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

phimo123-FR
11-12-2009, 05:50 PM
I don't really get the "why do we have to install games?". Just install it and STFU...

Maybe it is because I only have a few game and a PS3. My HDD is 40GB.

caswallawn_2k7
11-12-2009, 05:57 PM
Ps3 games that require a install generally do it to decrease load time's as it takes data from the disc and the hard drive allowing it to throw out more data at any1 time instead of just using one of the drives exclusively.

if you look at GTA4, MS took the **** out of Sony for the time it took to install but in later research it was proven that in about 40 load screen's the 360 version had already wasted more time than it took to install on the PS3 and run the game through the same amount of load screens.

PS3 installs are a good thing (when they are mandatory) as they allow the game to take data from two sources increasing read speeds. unlike the optional installs in PS3 games and 360 games that just put all the data to the hard drive to save wear and tear on the disc disc drive. (is a good thing on the 360 tho as it's DVD drive sounds like a jet engine)

Choopius
11-12-2009, 05:59 PM
So let me get this straight:

PS3 = Mandatory HD install just to run the game
360 = Runs right off the disk

PS3 = Blu-Ray
360 = DVD

PS3 = supposedly most powerful gaming system on the planet

360 = Runs AC2 right off the disk and reportedly looks and plays better than the PS3 version. (According to NeoGaf)

What am I missing here?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Prol33tariat
11-12-2009, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PSH_Nagisa:
I wondered If Atmon or any of the other Devs or Mods on the Forums could inform me whether it is a good Idea to install AC2 onto my Xbox hard-drive?

I also was wondering about how much space it will take up? (I still have not sprung for the 120GB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif)

Thankyou! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i really don't buy into it, its just there to compete with ps3...I work NEAR alot of game testers, for three different studios, and i can tell you about 1/5 whom install games havd HD issues within 3 months.

But thats just an observation, I really hate xbox360 with all the problems I have experienced ranging from explosions of the brick, to melting of the power in, to HD failures because of corruption, I went through 3 pro systems, and 2 elites before i through in the towel, I have had one ps3 and its never been back for repairs, I should mention that all of the six 360's in question had been back at least once, some more than once, in fact only the last elite went back once.

Crap, in a box, if you ask me, not hating just telling the news....So to answer your question, I would avoid it. Although generally speaking it can increas fps becaue there is no lag load from the DD. Same reason a lot of people crack games they own to play them without a disc in the tray, takes of the load time by about..5 mps

Prol33tariat
11-12-2009, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choopius:
So let me get this straight:

PS3 = Mandatory HD install just to run the game
360 = Runs right off the disk

PS3 = Blu-Ray
360 = DVD

PS3 = supposedly most powerful gaming system on the planet

360 = Runs AC2 right off the disk and reportedly looks and plays better than the PS3 version. (According to NeoGaf)

What am I missing here?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry for double, and no im not gonna go into a fanboy rant, yoru logic is sound and to answer your perponderance I'llt ell you straight up, what I have heard from coders and graphics people is that the playstations resources are all independent source'd, so In comparriosn to xbobx dev kits, that apparently had a lot of resource building tools, framework and the like, ps3 dev kits are all custom, therefore resources are privatized.

So instead of the console developer releasing a bunch of first part tools, everything is industry privatization, which is not a bad thing, and really keeps games in my opinion honest, they cant just puff daddy some new game from industry available resources.

So what has happened behind closed doors is say a big game like call of duty, has a port on the ps3, so meaning xbox360 is the "first" dev priority, instead of just "porting it" like you would think, because of all the legal paperwork done both by sony and microracket, you can't without paying everyone, so you literally have teams of coders, going back, redoing everything, taking the industry tools out of it and doing it again almost like a copy, but with all the watermarks ripped off and now replaced with the "original" ps3 resources, which they now had to rebuild from the ground up and replicate.

And it goes both ways, so if you prioritize your ps3 development, there are literally snags in the xbox360 framework that go chunk on purpose to prevent this overwriting, each publisher has waiver fees for bypasses of this, and its per right its not an overall fee.

So of course big games like call, dont have to worry cause they have the overhead to pay and juts be done. So mopre than likely which I hate to hear this game was done by one team on 360 devkits and than rehashed everything for ps3, or they paid for the porting waiver, but i dont know if i believe some random person, Everyone always says oh this and that about ps3, and besides the things like the screen not adjusting to HD settings automatically sometimes, everything looks awesome 1080p bluray and all the fiber optic cables and such....I have no complaints.

360 always looks smother, i guess to the untrained eye that could be considered better, but i personally think the ps3 outshines the 360 in representing contrasts, your always gonna have that glossy paper mache shineball madden models feel on 360, look at a game like MW2 on comparrison, 360 feels unnattached and shiny, ps3 feels dirty and claustprohobic, all the smoke and elemental effects are outstanding and never have any lag...

I dont buy the hype, ps3 owns, it has bad online, but i dont care to make myself feel better by pwning on ps3, thats what CS;S is for right?

for my console money i think ps3 always, especially the debacle that is the 360 failure rate.

Choopius
11-12-2009, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prol33tariat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choopius:
So let me get this straight:

PS3 = Mandatory HD install just to run the game
360 = Runs right off the disk

PS3 = Blu-Ray
360 = DVD

PS3 = supposedly most powerful gaming system on the planet

360 = Runs AC2 right off the disk and reportedly looks and plays better than the PS3 version. (According to NeoGaf)

What am I missing here?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry for double, and no im not gonna go into a fanboy rant, yoru logic is sound and to answer your perponderance I'llt ell you straight up, what I have heard from coders and graphics people is that the playstations resources are all independent source'd, so In comparriosn to xbobx dev kits, that apparently had a lot of resource building tools, framework and the like, ps3 dev kits are all custom, therefore resources are privatized.

So instead of the console developer releasing a bunch of first part tools, everything is industry privatization, which is not a bad thing, and really keeps games in my opinion honest, they cant just puff daddy some new game from industry available resources.

So what has happened behind closed doors is say a big game like call of duty, has a port on the ps3, so meaning xbox360 is the "first" dev priority, instead of just "porting it" like you would think, because of all the legal paperwork done both by sony and microracket, you can't without paying everyone, so you literally have teams of coders, going back, redoing everything, taking the industry tools out of it and doing it again almost like a copy, but with all the watermarks ripped off and now replaced with the "original" ps3 resources, which they now had to rebuild from the ground up and replicate.

And it goes both ways, so if you prioritize your ps3 development, there are literally snags in the xbox360 framework that go chunk on purpose to prevent this overwriting, each publisher has waiver fees for bypasses of this, and its per right its not an overall fee.

So of course big games like call, dont have to worry cause they have the overhead to pay and juts be done. So mopre than likely which I hate to hear this game was done by one team on 360 devkits and than rehashed everything for ps3, or they paid for the porting waiver, but i dont know if i believe some random person, Everyone always says oh this and that about ps3, and besides the things like the screen not adjusting to HD settings automatically sometimes, everything looks awesome 1080p bluray and all the fiber optic cables and such....I have no complaints.

360 always looks smother, i guess to the untrained eye that could be considered better, but i personally think the ps3 outshines the 360 in representing contrasts, your always gonna have that glossy paper mache shineball madden models feel on 360, look at a game like MW2 on comparrison, 360 feels unnattached and shiny, ps3 feels dirty and claustprohobic, all the smoke and elemental effects are outstanding and never have any lag...

I dont buy the hype, ps3 owns, it has bad online, but i dont care to make myself feel better by pwning on ps3, thats what CS;S is for right?

for my console money i think ps3 always, especially the debacle that is the 360 failure rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well put and an interesting read. Thanks.

caswallawn_2k7
11-13-2009, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choopius:
So let me get this straight:

PS3 = Mandatory HD install just to run the game
360 = Runs right off the disk

PS3 = Blu-Ray
360 = DVD

PS3 = supposedly most powerful gaming system on the planet

360 = Runs AC2 right off the disk and reportedly looks and plays better than the PS3 version. (According to NeoGaf)

What am I missing here?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
the fact dev firms have said mandatory install's for the 360 would massively increase the ability of the console (due to small media size) but since MS made a choice to release a console with no hard drive, MS will not allow people to use mandatory installs on the 360 as it would stop people playing, games due to a lack of a hard drive.

so really it's all about MS's choice not to make the hard drive a standard feature of all the 360 models. a lot of firms have complained about this on both the 360 and Wii as it limits the two consoles.

hell even MS failed on space in their consoles without hard drives when they had to give all people with a arcade system a free memory card just so they could install a system update.

and the neogaf thing is about as credible as a drunken red neck who say's he was abducted by aliens.

the amolang
11-13-2009, 05:50 AM
I don't know if it will really make a difference but I'm going to install it, but I might as well... I heard it makes it run quieter so I would do it for that alone.