• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

RE4 Hands on impressions from IGN

stone128 said:
I don't get the people who waited this long to play RE4. Gamecube is dirt cheap by now isn't it?

STUPIDITY.

Well that's just because people like telling themselves there's no games on GC (other than RE4) worth paying 60-70 dollars for the system.
 
Zeo said:
Well that's just because people like telling themselves there's no games on GC (other than RE4) worth paying 60-70 dollars for the system.
It's pretty obvious to me that you can have a system with games that just don't appeal to an individual. I think the current DS library is garbage, but obviously there are those who enjoy it. I also think PSP has a number of really good games, but a lot of other claim there are none. Who's right? Both of us!

The GC is not loaded with tons of content, so it seems entirely possible that someone would not deem it worthwhile.
 
dark10x said:
It's pretty obvious to me that you can have a system with games that just don't appeal to an individual. I think the current DS library is garbage, but obviously there are those who enjoy it. I also think PSP has a number of really good games, but a lot of other claim there are none. Who's right? Both of us!

The GC is not loaded with tons of content, so it seems entirely possible that someone would not deem it worthwhile.

Eh, whatever. There's great adventure, action, platforming, racing, arcade sports games on GC. A few awesome RPGs too.

There's good games and bad games, and anyone not willing to try the great GC games is just stubborn.
 
Zeo said:
Eh, whatever. There's great adventure, action, platforming, racing, arcade sports games on GC. A few awesome RPGs too.

There's good games and bad games, and anyone not willing to try the great GC games is just stubborn.
Yes, and there ARE a lot of stubborn gamers.
 
Zeo said:
Eh, whatever. There's great adventure, action, platforming, racing, arcade sports games on GC. A few awesome RPGs too.

There's good games and bad games, and anyone not willing to try the great GC games is just stubborn.

A lot of those genres aren't great or awesome on GC. And RE4 is easily the best game on the system. But it's so damn cheap, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't tried it by now if they were interested.
 
I'm wondering if that 2-3 second load time from the Menu could have something to do with the PS2 not having as much memory to pull from (GC=24+16, PS2=32). Assuming the GC version exploited the RAM to its fullest for certain parts of the game (and is not used simply to reduce load times between areas), I could see them having to make concessions to overcome the 7-8 meg deficit.

Thoughts?
 
Miburou said:
I tried a dozen GC games. I still don't think they're worth buying the console for.

I tried a dozen PS2 games. I still don't think they're worth buying the console for. :lol

Glad they make all kinds of consoles for all kinds of people :D
 
OptimusPrime said:
I tried a dozen PS2 games. I still don't think they're worth buying the console for. :lol

Glad they make all kinds of consoles for all kinds of people :D
Yeah, stick it to him!

I only played Shrek, Winnie Puuh and The Getaway on the PS2. That was the point when I decided NOT to buy a PS2.
pte1.jpg
 
I'm wondering if that 2-3 second load time from the Menu could have something to do with the PS2 not having as much memory to pull from (GC=24+16, PS2=32). Assuming the GC version exploited the RAM to its fullest for certain parts of the game (and is not used simply to reduce load times between areas), I could see them having to make concessions to overcome the 7-8 meg deficit.
Quite possibly. Was it completely instant on GC?

Oh well, HDloader to the rescue.
 
OptimusPrime said:
I tried a dozen PS2 games. I still don't think they're worth buying the console for. :lol

Of course the difference is that a dozen PS2 games is barely scratching the surface of the PS2's library.
 
Marconelly said:
Quite possibly. Was it completely instant on GC?

Oh well, HDloader to the rescue.
As far as I remember is was essentially instantaneous. It would be weird if they added mid-game loading for accessing the menu of all things instead of reducing more memory hogging items in the game itself (like enemy variety).
 
Eh, I don't think it's so hard to believe that someone wouldn't want a GC. There's not a whole lot of AAA exclusives on the system, and so if you're not so hot on most of them, you really have no need to buy one.

It's the same way with me and the Xbox.
 
manngc said:
I'm wondering if that 2-3 second load time from the Menu could have something to do with the PS2 not having as much memory to pull from (GC=24+16, PS2=32).
Gamecube can't use that extra 16 megs for graphical stuff....it's too slow. The system effectively has less RAM than the PS2. The A-memory is for audio. RE4 Cube also has a mild stutter when you pause, IIRC.
 
border said:
Gamecube can't use that extra 16 megs for graphical stuff....it's too slow. The system effectively has less RAM than the PS2. The A-memory is for audio. RE4 Cube also has a mild stutter when you pause, IIRC.
16 megs for audio is ridiculous. The 16 megs acts as a memory cache (like a quick hard drive). Therefore, assuming parts of the game maximize the available memory, the developers for the PS2 version have to effectively overcome a 7-8 meg decifit in available memory for areas. Otherwise, you're left with 2-3 sec access times (possibly due to switching weapons) that on the GC would be nearly unnoticable. Thoughts?
 
The game is going to look fucking ridiculous if the bodies stay on the ground. WTF? I must have killed 40-50 zombies...er, I mean people... in that first town area.
 
manngc said:
16 megs for audio is ridiculous. The 16 megs acts as a memory cache (like a quick hard drive). Therefore, assuming parts of the game maximize the available memory, the developers for the PS2 version have to effectively overcome a 7-8 meg decifit in available memory for areas. Otherwise, you're left with 2-3 sec access times (possibly due to switching weapons) that on the GC would be nearly unnoticable. Thoughts?

It's A-ram and very very slow at only about 80 mb/sec transfer rate, can't do to much with it be yes it can elivate things that doesn't require the direct usage of the main ram like cache things and selection screens, and probably good reason the GC menu access these things much quicker. If the thing about enemies staying onscreen longer holds true, that might be the result of PS2 having more main memory to access.
 
The comment about the bodies staying put is just the editors forgeting that at the beginning of the game, the bodies don't melt. That's all. The developers know the PS2 can't handle all the bodies staying put throughout the game and maintain a steady frame-rate...
 
manngc said:
The comment about the bodies staying put is just the editors forgeting that at the beginning of the game, the bodies don't melt. That's all. The developers know the PS2 can't handle all the bodies staying put throughout the game and maintain a steady frame-rate...

I would think so too. At best they could have a few more bodies onscreen before they melt, we obviously won't see piles being made. That might be RE5 though.
 
border said:
Gamecube can't use that extra 16 megs for graphical stuff....it's too slow. The system effectively has less RAM than the PS2. The A-memory is for audio. RE4 Cube also has a mild stutter when you pause, IIRC.

*turns on RE4 and continuously calls up menu*

Getting to the menu is instantaneous getting from the menu is about half a second.
 
The game was designed for the Gamecube. Porting it to PS2 and adding some stuff doesn't change that... I guess I'm just sentimental, but i'd rather play the Cube version. I get a kick out of knowing it was the first version, the true original

But I will rent the ps2 one.. i gotta see it in widescreen
 
Top Bottom