Resident Evil 4
- Thread starter IceDigger
- Start date
Everyone point and laugh!
quote nelson from the simpsons: "ha ha!"
quote nelson from the simpsons: "ha ha!"
Chiraz said:
You give us mature Gamecube fans a bad name, you know that?
Agreed,
Anyway, sounds good to me. It just shows what the PS2 can do when paired up with GameCube...
and.... TAKE THAT SONY jUU SUXXORSS@@!@!!!!!@#11one!!!!
(jk)
CrazyGoon said:
Uh huh, and I don't buy that bit of news.
When Sony (and MS) released their system's polygon count, it was raw polygons. Raw polygons are nothing more than a wireframe. When you add textures, lighting, a physics engine, game engine and all the other little things needed to make a game those numbers are cut down to almost nothing.
FACT: The PS2 is in no way more powerful or even on the same level as the GameCube and Xbox.
For those wondering, the Xbox and GameCube are pretty much neck and neck. So close that whether or not a game is superior to it's counter part on the other system is pretty much determined by the developer. Which console it was intended for, how much time they spent porting, how good they are, etc. etc.
FACT: The PS2 is in no way more powerful or even on the same level as the GameCube and Xbox.
For those wondering, the Xbox and GameCube are pretty much neck and neck. So close that whether or not a game is superior to it's counter part on the other system is pretty much determined by the developer. Which console it was intended for, how much time they spent porting, how good they are, etc. etc.
Bad news (for fanboys), this looks to be fake.
http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid...s=full#comments
Don't fret to much. The PS2 version will still have considerably inferior graphics.
http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid...s=full#comments
That right there is a dead giveaway. The PS2 doesn't have superior texturing capabilities.
Don't fret to much. The PS2 version will still have considerably inferior graphics.
jamesc359: You got a quick source for that info? (about the MS and Sony console polygon specs).
From what you say though, that would entirely make sense, since this current generation has seen many games which have been released on two or all three of the current consoles; a testiment to the fact that it's easily possible (system technology wise) for the current consoles to run the same games.
But as I said, I don't understand why the PS2 port of RE4 is going to be as bad as the sources are making it out to be..
From what you say though, that would entirely make sense, since this current generation has seen many games which have been released on two or all three of the current consoles; a testiment to the fact that it's easily possible (system technology wise) for the current consoles to run the same games.
But as I said, I don't understand why the PS2 port of RE4 is going to be as bad as the sources are making it out to be..
well, it's a beautiful GCN game....and it just can't look as good as on the GCN. Now half as many polygons....maybe on screen (so half as many enemies) but not on a per-char. basis. They would just drop the texture or go about the lighting in a dif way or sumthin. Like it's been stated before it can pump out the polygons, just can't do that and make em pretty lol.
We'll see I guess wont we?
We'll see I guess wont we?
Although IGN can be biased, I do believe this is accurate.CrazyGoon said:
Source: http://cube.ign.com/articles/083/083749p1.html
PS1 faster than the N64? Cold day in hell. Anybody who has ever seen a PS1 game knows that is BS. Sony always measures in raw polygons. But I digress...
When it comes to computing you can't always look at the numbers and come to a conclusion. There are so many things going on behind the scenes that can't make it on a list of numbers. For example, they also list the CPU speeds. But fail to point out that the number of clock cycles isn't always an acurate indicator of speed. This is why AMD quit labeling their CPU's with it's speed. Instead opting to give their chips a number that indicates it's equivilant speed compared to an Intel chip.
They also list the consoles main memory bandwidth in their list, but fail to point out that the Cube (unlike the other two) has two other memory buses.
If you really like to read, these two (almost overly verbose) articles do a wonderful job of comparing the Xbox to the Cube. They never bothered with the PS2 for reasons they make clear in the articles.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1566
Their conclusion:
Their conclusions although accurate were still based on launch titles. If you've looked at any of todays multi-platform games, you know that the difference between the Cube & Xbox is minimal. Hence my statement that the difference is so little that it really comes down to the developers and their skill, not the hardware.
It might be, but if the source is indeed fake, it might not be that bad. Still, there is noway the PS2 version can match the Cube's graphically.CrazyGoon said:
You all must be morons. plain idiots.
playstation users do not get ANY games to do with the main storyline. so they won't get 0 enhanced 1 or 4.
plus you gotta look at the graphics and how good they are. resident evil 2 on ps1 and on n64 were very different. n64's people looked square and they all didn't look human(with those rectangular arms) while ps1's characters looked like actual people or they made it less noticeable. i believe playstation was better here. playstation beat n64 in quality, if they had a version on both systems, with maybe a rare occasion of n64 beating ps1. the only reason gamecube beats ps2(and not by much in game quality) is they had more time. also ps2 gamemakers make use of their resources better than gamecube gamemakers.
playstation users do not get ANY games to do with the main storyline. so they won't get 0 enhanced 1 or 4.
plus you gotta look at the graphics and how good they are. resident evil 2 on ps1 and on n64 were very different. n64's people looked square and they all didn't look human(with those rectangular arms) while ps1's characters looked like actual people or they made it less noticeable. i believe playstation was better here. playstation beat n64 in quality, if they had a version on both systems, with maybe a rare occasion of n64 beating ps1. the only reason gamecube beats ps2(and not by much in game quality) is they had more time. also ps2 gamemakers make use of their resources better than gamecube gamemakers.
When I compare consoles I think about what games are out for each one.
I got my GC cuz it had really cool games like Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (All you cell shader haters need to look past the graphics), Super Smash Bros. and Double Dash was just around the corner at the time. I'm workin on getting a PS2 so I can finally play me some Final Fantasy (My PS1 was returned to me by a friend as just the console... no controller, A/V cord or A/C power cord)... i figure i might as well just get the PS2 instead of new gear for my PS1. Right now I see no real incentive for me to get the Xbox but that's just cuz I'm not a big fan of FPS's or Fighting Games. I'm a Platformer/RPG Junkie, so the GC/PS2 combo seems to be the perfect match.
In the end, I don't care about polygon count. All I care about is which system has better games. If the PS2's version of RE4 isn't as fun as the GC version then I think we'll have some grounds to complain. But just cuz there isn't as many polygons? c'mon, Fun is Fun regardless of how many ribbons and bows you put on it 😉
Lemme just say one more thing... GC is still the cheapest of the 3 big Consoles out there 😉... hell, a Brand New GC costs less than a Used PS2 (That's just plain used, not even refurbished 😉 ) and we all know how much a wallet can affect which system or games get purchased after payday.
I got my GC cuz it had really cool games like Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (All you cell shader haters need to look past the graphics), Super Smash Bros. and Double Dash was just around the corner at the time. I'm workin on getting a PS2 so I can finally play me some Final Fantasy (My PS1 was returned to me by a friend as just the console... no controller, A/V cord or A/C power cord)... i figure i might as well just get the PS2 instead of new gear for my PS1. Right now I see no real incentive for me to get the Xbox but that's just cuz I'm not a big fan of FPS's or Fighting Games. I'm a Platformer/RPG Junkie, so the GC/PS2 combo seems to be the perfect match.
In the end, I don't care about polygon count. All I care about is which system has better games. If the PS2's version of RE4 isn't as fun as the GC version then I think we'll have some grounds to complain. But just cuz there isn't as many polygons? c'mon, Fun is Fun regardless of how many ribbons and bows you put on it 😉
Lemme just say one more thing... GC is still the cheapest of the 3 big Consoles out there 😉... hell, a Brand New GC costs less than a Used PS2 (That's just plain used, not even refurbished 😉 ) and we all know how much a wallet can affect which system or games get purchased after payday.
Insane Corn said:
Yay like totoally ps2 not gets RE4 because even tho capcom say they do, they not right? Yay cause I said so wee! And RE2 look so bad on n64 cause high rezulotion shows deh bad graphics to my eyes and tells my brain the peoples are blockier then playstation's re2. its all cause dose gamemakers people. yah! itas der fault for not gamemaking better! ps2 has best p[ower graphics but its gamemakers who dont knowq dis!
:
: It's children like you that make me want to give up the entire hobby.
