Support NeoGAF

[HomerSimpson-Man]

So we have higher res versus slightly more detailed graphics, it's going to compliment nicely to each other on my shelf.

 

[krypt0nian]

That looks significantly worse than the GC version, but it still looks good for a PS2 game.

No, it really doesn't.

Man, the PS2 is a beast.

 

[pixelbox]

:

 

[pixelbox]

DEY TUK R JRRRRRRRRB.

what a dumb bastard!!!!1111 :lol :lol you're just mad because there is no real noticable difference.

 

[shpankey]

these look every bit as good as the GCN version to me.

one thing I really like also is how there are no jaggies. looks like they're running some nice FSAA in this game.

 

[boutrosinit]

So if it doesn't matter to you, it universally doesn't matter to all people? ¬¬

If the difference were noticable then yes, I'm sure it would matter to many. Possibly me also. However, the change is NOT noticable. I swear when Sam brought it into the office, I was in shock. I did not believe this thing was a PS2 game. I've played the GC version extensively - hell I'm STILL playing it! I'm on my fourth playthrough for fuck's sake!

I believe in logic, and logic to me would state, anyone who'd give a shit about difference that really cannot be noticed unless you pause the game, put the gamecube version by its side and pull out a fucking magnifying glass, is A FUCKING LOSER/COCKSMOKER.

This why I feel it universally doesn't matter to SANE, RATIONALLY THINKING PEOPLE who recognise the awesomness not only of the game, but of the grade A top notch conversion job Capcom hath executed. See for yourself when it comes out. If it bothers you that much, don't buy it.

 

[jetjevons]

So the PS2 sku has proper wide screen anamorpic?

When I played RE4 GC I used the "zoom" function on my widescreen tv to make it full screen and get rid of the borders. This of course reduced the quality/detail of the graphics.

What I'm really curious to know is: will PROPER FULLSCREEN PS2 RE4 look better/worse than ZOOMED RE4 GC?

 

[Error]

what the hell is up with people talking about ada's dress "flowing" better or having better branches on the GC seriously what the fuck is wrong with people?

RE4 is the best game this gen that automatically makes it a must-buy regardless of the system. go buy this game and stop with this shit already kthxbye.

 

[[Reki]]

I believe in logic, and logic to me would state, anyone who'd give a shit about difference that really cannot be noticed unless you pause the game, put the gamecube version by its side and pull out a fucking magnifying glass, is A FUCKING LOSER/COCKSMOKER.

So you don't notice it, that's fine. But some of us do without having to do that.

This why I feel it universally doesn't matter to SANE, RATIONALLY THINKING PEOPLE who recognise the awesomness not only of the game, but of the grade A top notch conversion job Capcom hath executed.

I never denied the excellence of the port, just state the differences between it and the original game.

 

[brandonh83]

When it comes down to it, when you really get into RE4, the visuals will be the last thing on the brain. It's actually more like "oh fuck I'm screwed."

 

[Bluemercury]

It looks virtually identical to the GC version, but it defenitly has a different image "feeling" if you can say that, still this game is old news to me, so, those who choose not to get it earlier, well enjoy the game......its probably the best this gen.....

 

[Raistlin]

For those people who didn't bother to read through the Gamespot preview,

"For those looking to go through this adventure with a fine-tooth comb, you will certainly find elements that aren't exactly the same as the GC version. However, we doubt anyone will be surprised to hear that the PS2 game features less-detailed textures and special effects, and it's jaggier in a few more places than the GameCube version is. That said, this version is still a striking mix of technology and artistry."

So, it's clear that the PS2 version is not up-to-par with the GC version visually, but for all intents and purposes it is the same wonderful game which we all loved so much on the GC. Anyone who owns a PS2 and not a GC will be in for a real treat, but for those saying that there is no noticeable difference visually between the two versions - please stop the BS. The dev team did a great job with the PS2 version - it is not quite as good visually, but it contains more material. Not a bad trade-off.

I don't think its quite as easy as the NGC version looks better. It does in some ways (not significantly though), but there are a few things the PS2 version does a little better as well.

 

[Nick Laslett]

For me the GC version doesn't look that good. But that's becuase I'm playing on a 42" 16:9 screen.

I hope the extra 100 lines (approx) of extra resolution and 16:9 mode included in the PS2 version, improve how the game looks on my set-up.

 

[nightez]

This looks great, almost as good looking as the GC version. A sure sign of Capcom's mastery of the PS2 hardware because any other developer would screwed it up before they even started.

But according the producers interview, the budget for this 'conversion' was the same as a full fledged game. So that explains alot. This version has a slightly higher screen resolution but lacks the multitexturing of the GC version.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

I love how Gamespot makes the jaggier and not as polished comments knowing that this is a unfinished build of an 8 month port of a 2 year build of a "push the GC to its limits" game

Way to go morons.
Why couldn't they point out the "so in your face even blind people could see Xbox has effects scaled back" differences between the Xbox and PS2 versions of Burnout?

I'm just expecting the final review of the GC version to be really lame and contradictory.
Something along the lines of "The PS2 version looks just like the GC version, but the GC version looks much better."

 

[123rl]

What do you expect? They played the preview version, they gave their comments on it. If it has jaggies now then it has jaggies...would you prefer them to ignore any problems it has and hope they fix it for the final release? If they said it looked perfect and the final game is released and it looks horrible then you'd be the first to lynch them and say they aren't doing their job properly

Jeez, talk about getting too defensive :lol

 

[Naked Snake]

I'm surprised no one noticed or commented on this:

You'll find a commendable amount of attention paid to fine detail here, with wall textures, fire effects, and even small schools of fish in the water that hold up to being scrutinized with Leon's binoculars

If I recall correctly, you couldn't use the binoculars in the GC version (except for one event where you couldn't move), the feature was available in the GC E3 demo but taken out from the final game for unknown reasons... The GameSpot comment suggests that you can use the binoculars at any time in the PS2 game, that's sweet IMO, and makes removing it from the final GC version all the more puzzling.

 

[dark10x]

I love how Gamespot makes the jaggier and not as polished comments knowing that this is a unfinished build of an 8 month port of a 2 year build of a "push the GC to its limits" game

I almost think that the comment was nothing more than a "it's a PS2 game, it HAS to be jaggy...".

It's a full framebuffer game and uses mipmapping. On a 16:9 TV, the 480p + anamorphic display setting would actually be higher resolution even. I don't think their comment is entirely accurate. It's like the generic PS2 complaint. If you have to comment on SOMETHING, you say "jaggy", even if it isn't entirely true. Perhaps they are forgetting that RE4 was always a bit rough in the image quality department on GC as well.

I know there are downgrades present, but I don't think image quality is one of them. The game seems to run in a higher color depth and can run in a higher resolution. It should be sharper and and cleaner on an HDTV.

I like Gamespot, but they've missed the mark on image quality issues before (with PoP2 GC standing as the best example).

Why couldn't they point out the "so in your face even blind people could see Xbox has effects scaled back" differences between the Xbox and PS2 versions of Burnout?

That's another thing...

They simply commented that the PS2 version was "jaggier" without noting the other differences (and quite frankly, if you play them side by side, ANYONE should be able to notice them as the differences are not small). Once again, I think it came down to the typical "PS2 complaint" that is always thrown up. In this case, BR didn't even use mipmapping AND the XBOX version DID have very clean image quality. However, that is only one difference. RE4 on GC did not have image quality on par with the best we've seen on XBOX or even GC. That is why I believe the PS2 version is an upgrade in that area.

Perhaps the PS2 version looks good enough that they couldn't even notice any of the differences? I think most of the differences will require scrutiny. Only things like water will really stand out...and it's not too common in RE4.

Another improvements I've been able to pull from new media is the enhanced post processing. The depth of field used during the intro, for instance, seems to look nicer in the PS2 version. The GC has a rough time with effects of that sort whereas the PS2 handles them beautifully.

 

[nightez]

Alot of people mistake RE4's 'dirty/grainy' filter for bad image image quality. Its actually meant to look like that.

 

[Raven.]

It's amazing how far Capcom dev.s have come on ps2, IIRC during the early days of ps2 they even commented they had trouble matching the visuals of RE:CV for DC.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

What do you expect? They played the preview version, they gave their comments on it. If it has jaggies now then it has jaggies...would you prefer them to ignore any problems it has and hope they fix it for the final release? If they said it looked perfect and the final game is released and it looks horrible then you'd be the first to lynch them and say they aren't doing their job properly

Jeez, talk about getting too defensive :lol

I honestly can't recall a time in the past 5 years that they have done thier job properly.

They claimed Burnout 3 looked better on Xbox but never gave any proof as to why.
They claimed SH4 looked better on Xbox but failed to give any reasons why.
They claimed Burnout Revenge looked better on Xbox but failed to give a reason why.
They scored MGS2 Substance a low score for PS2 and a high score for Xbox. wtf?

I could go on all day.
It's like they either don't know how to properly calibrate a TV for each console's display or they are seriously biased. I love how they always point out jaggies in games on PS2 yet they never point them out on the Xbox.

"No, KOTOR doesn't have a really horrible framerate that drops below 10fps and lots of jaggies. That's just how the game is supposed to look, really!"

Then they turn around and degrade God of War by claiming it had all these frame rate problems. wth?

I even think they were the ones that started that whole 'PS2 is showing its age" statement a few months back.

Give me a break.
Gamespot seriously needs to re-evaluate thier staff.
If you are going to be professional, be professional not pansy.

/end rant

 

[Solid]

they've been xbox fanboys for quite some time (especially kasavin). i'm amazed i'm the only one who can see it. but i dont read or take their scores seriously anymore so i guess i dont really give a shit what they give this version, it wont score anywhere near 9.6 despite being on par with the original that's for sure.