Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
Edit:
Ok.. Wow. Just.. Wow. So the audio is better, the textures on the models are much better, I'm pretty sure the polygon count is the same though. But the backgrounds.. they are better but let's just say it isn't night and day. I had both paused at the same section, and flipping back and forth, I was sometimes not positive which one I was looking at. There's actually a background/model blending effect in the GC version that actually looks BETTER. Some of the backgrounds look upres'd with sharpening filters put on them. Wow. That's... hm.
the evil within was pretty good on the survival part.
GC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It84_qB3Sco&index=46&list=PL72F0BC22646BC89E
REmaster: (go to 25:23)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqC3hxoHca8
I disagree. The REmaster looks still good because people who ported it did lots of work to make it look good. They probably also had access to the source material which is very likely significantly higher quality than the materials that are in the Gamecube version.
If you compare REmaster release to the Gamecube release, the Gamecube release will look significantly worse. Had it been originally based on PS2, it would still look good now (presuming that the team that made REmaster would still do as good if not better effort for it to "look good").
Not to mention that if what you're arguing for was true... Consider this: a game with dynamic 2D backgrounds doesn't take much computing power, apart from the special FX used in the game. But it does require a lot of space.
PS2 DVD-9 disc can contain ~8GBs of stuff. Gamecube's NOP disc only has 1,5GBs and the game had to be released on two discs. Had the PS2 been the original platform for the game we could probably expect it would have had higher resolution everything when compared to the Gamecube. And based on your argument, the REmaster would look even better than it already does.
By the way, RE4's original port for Windows was messed up in more than one way. Yes, it was based on PS2 version. But at the same time it looked worse than the PS2 version, it had bugs that didn't exist in the PS2 version, and so on. The people who made the port didn't either have the skill to make the port, or then they didn't have time or money to put forth an effort to make it a good port.
Yes, the backgrounds themselves were static, but the lighting and certain elements of the background scenes were dynamic, something the PS2 would have been able to reproduce for the most part, but, considering its reduced processing power, with lesser effect than the GCN.
Not to mention the fact that, in spite of the higher capacity medium on PS2, it's read speeds were much slower, meaning simple things like scene transitions might have been seriously hampered - improving on assets for a hypothetical PS2 version would have compounded the issue, making it non-viable.
Also, regardless of how the PS2-based PC port of RE4 looked, the fact of the matter is, the PS2 version was vastly inferior to the original GCN version, again, as a result of reduced hardware capability.
The GameCube was a sound technical choice for the REmake, even if the financial results fell below expectations.
You know it would help you to read all the words I wrote about the environments in my message. And I think you're under estimating the capabilities of the PS2. And over estimating the Gamecube's capabilities.
Do you remember the NFS Most Wanted talk? Even if you had the Gamecube with a better hardware, developers wouldn't always take advantage of it. Leading to appearances of games where worse hardware had more stuff on screen. Just for the sake of an quick example take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLvXGCEVd2g
And the read speeds wouldn't have been an issue that would have "made it non-viable". It probably would have resulted a longer loading times but if properly done, it wouldn't have significantly hampered the game. We can see this from the PS2's long list of games. But it's true that Gamecube's optical CAV disc makes games load faster.
That's because the format allows random access to any given spot of the disc. However it further degraded the capasity of the disc itself. If were talking about audio disc formats, CAV disc could only hold 30 minutes of audio instead of CLV disc's 60 minutes of audio. CLV is ideal for maintaining constant data rate and bit density.
Gamecube's CAV discs have data rate of ~25Mbit/s. Playstation 2's CLV DVDs can attain ~45Mbit/s data rate. But since it has to seek data more often the result is that the loading times wouldn't be significantly worse for the hypotethical PS2 version.
Also a large library of PS2 games have shown us that when games are being developed only PS2 mind it can do some interesting stuff. I'd personally like to believe the RE4's PS2 port was also poorly and hastly done. There are games on PS2 that look better than the RE4 on Gamecube. But it's true that Gamecube arguably has better hardware that could do lots of interesting stuff. And I retro perspectively feel that Gamecube was really undervalued by many people. And it never had the chance to show its true potential.
Ultimately the Gamecube's fate was determined by the fact that it's disc format could only contain 1,3GBs of data. Leading to features being removed from the Gamecube version of multi-platform games, shipping games on multiple discs, and some games not being even released for the Gamecube in the first place.
Can you think what kind of additional features the REmaster would now have, if it wasn't originally released for the Gamecube? I make that question fully admitting that it's still an excellent game and it was very skillfully done for the Gamecube. And that it's very entertaining.
If we disregard the disc format then Gamecube was a sane choise for the game from a technical point of view. But it still wouldn't have made any sense from the business and marketing point of view.
But I personally believe and I will continue to believe that the hypothetical PS2 version could have been just as good if not better. And considering the sales figures it's obvious that it was released for "wrong platform". The target audience was on the Playstation 2 and the Xbox 1 (by the way, the Xbox also uses CAV drive but it can read regular CLV DVD-9s and CLV CDs too).
I did read all the words you wrote, and stand by my initial appraisal of your comment. In terms of pure polygon output, the two systems were fairly comparable, but in terms of shader and lighting output, the GCN blew the PS2 out of the water, and given that the REmake made significant use of those particular technical elements of the GameCube's abilities, it stands to reason that visual fidelity and performance output would be increased on that platform's more efficient hardware.
Also, your comparison of NFS, a multi-platform game is irrelevant, specifically because it's a multi-platform game. REmake was designed from the ground up to take advantage of the efficiency of the GCN hardware - NFS, presumably, was not - it makes absolute sense that the game designed for purpose exclusively on GCN hardware will outmatch a multi-platform port, because that game was made to take advantage of the extra power.
Read speeds alone wouldn't have made the improving of assets non-viable, but they would have, as you stated, increased load times, which themselves had to be limited to the animation of a door opening, and could have potentially slowed down scene transitions within a single room.
Couple those slower read speeds with inferior hardware - vastly slower system memory, a slower, albeit more adaptable CPU, the fact that the PS2 didn't allow for hardware texture compression, and instead opted for software compression which was offloaded onto the already limited CPU, and you're left with a situation where it seems unreasonable to think that they could've put out any game on that system with significantly improved assets.
Again, although what you're saying might be factually correct, it's only a small contributing factor as to why a PS2 version of this game, which makes significant use of the GameCube's dedicated graphics chip's abilities to deal with things like lighting, an option the PS2 did not afford developers, would most likely not be as technically impressive as the GCN game that was released.
I agree, port quality is probably a factor in the deficit in graphical fidelity between the two versions, but there's absolutely no denying that, either way, concessions would've had to be made to get the game playable on the PS2. And yes, there are many camparitively good looking PS2 games which did take advantage of the system's complicated hardware, but given the right technical care, nothing the GCN wouldn't have been able to reproduce with similar results.
GCN's fate was sealed by the same thing that has sealed the fate of every other Nintendo system bar the Wii - lack of appreciation for third-party support. Shipping games on multiple discs isn't really relevant, because generally the hardware wasn't powerful enough to allow the type of assets which would be required to need more than 2 discs.
I can't think of any advantages to the game having originally being released on GCN in relation to this Remaster - presumably what we have here is probably what we would've gotten had the game been a PS2 exclusive. However, I do believe that it would've taken more work to get it to that standard.
I still don't see the disc format as being a major hinderance to the game at all, but I do agree that it probably wasn't a sage business decision to favour the GameCube exclusively.
Again, although I don't believe a PS2 version could have been as impressive as the GCN version was when it released, I'm not suggesting that a PS2 option wouldn't have been possible. And, again, I'm in agreement they missed their target audience by choosing Nintendo exclusivity. RE was traditionally a PlayStation series, Nintendo fans, even at that time, are simply more interested in that company's first-part titles.
I'm getting sleepy and I need to get to bed... Sorry that this message doesn't have a red thread you can follow.
First of all... I specifically wrote that the game uses dynamic 2D backgrounds in my comment. But despite of that you wrote "Yes, the backgrounds themselves were static, but the lighting and certain elements of the background scenes were dynamic". Which to me seems that you didn't read what I wrote or as if you didn't understand what I had written. I didn't even mention the word "static".
The comparison to multi-platform title is not irrelevant for my argument. Besides we were just talking about multi-platform RE4 being worse on PS2. It's just a quick example that even if you have a superior hardware, it doesn't automatically lead to superior quality in its games. Even if you'd built a game specifically for that platform.
And in the case of the Gamecube the disc is that limiting bottle neck. I have no reason to doubt that the Gamecube's hardware can do lots of stuff. But its disc format cannot contain that stuff. Other games could have more on other platforms.
I am arguing that both systems have their strong points and how PS2's features like the larger disc capasity would have made up for the things it lacks in some areas. The shading and other FX capabilities can usually also be worked with since different GPUs do some stuff better and other stuff worse. PS2 could and can have certain special FX that Gamecube wouldn't have been capable of, I believe. I know it's subjective but PS2 isn't "vastly inferior" to the Gamecube. I'd say it's in-general inferior but it has its strong points too.
PS2 does allow hardware texture compression in form of Pallettizing. However it's really bad way to do texture compression causing issues for example in colour graduation due limited palette.
Door animations wouldn't have limited the loading times. Those things (e.g. door animation) can be adjusted like it has been done on other platforms. An extra second addition don't really make much difference when your transition already takes approx. ~15 seconds in most cases.
I also wrote "signigicantly hampered the game" as in "not any worse than the Gamecube", not in a sense of "a lot better than the Gamecube".
The Gamecube's fate was sealed by the disc format. And lack of third party support is part of that story. It's not uncommon that the third party developers often cite the small disc format as the primary reason to not support the Gamecube. It made difficult to port PS2 and Xbox games to Gamecube. And Nintendo's "they'll come to us"-attitude towards 3rd party developers didn't help the matter. Among other things. But that's what I believe.
I believe that game content was cut, textures were less than what the Gamecube was capable of, Sound quality was not as good, and other things because of the Gamecube's disc format. The disc format was a limiting factor.