Does this port also include the extra content of the PS2 version?

[Ŧђɇ ƼϮϞ §μȑ√iⱴ۞ѓ]

I know this is based on the Dreamcast version, which I still have , but does it also include the extra content of the PS2 version? I never played the PS2 version. Would be nice if this version has the extras.

[keehu]

what extra content, the cutscenes? if so, no.

[Melodia]

What extras did PS2 have?

[Azure Sky]

Just cutscenes from what I understand...They looked kinda out of place compared to the rendered ones in the DC version.

[terry309]

Originally posted by Azure Sky:

Just cutscenes from what I understand...They looked kinda out of place compared to the rendered ones in the DC version.

Meh I liked them... heck I liked the PS2 version, never understood the hate. I had no problems with it.

[Derangel]

Originally posted by terry309:

Originally posted by Azure Sky:

Just cutscenes from what I understand...They looked kinda out of place compared to the rendered ones in the DC version.

Meh I liked them... heck I liked the PS2 version, never understood the hate. I had no problems with it.

As I recall the PS2 version had more performance issues than the DC version. My memory could be wrong on that though, it's been a long time since I've played either version.

[Melodia]

Yeah the PS2 one is supposedly a somewhat rocky port.

[NTripleOne]

I recall seeing that the graphics were somehow worse on the PS2 version, lower res textures in some places and other things like that.

[Oddness]

Prerendered cutscenes are the most stupid thing that ever came into fashion for games.

[ArtVandelay]

The original PC release in 2002 was the PS2 version w/ the additional cutscenes.

So why would GA go thru the trouble of porting the DC iso to PC when all they had to do was update the PC one that was already based on the PS2 port?

[Derangel]

Originally posted by Dee Barksdale:

The original PC release in 2002 was the PS2 version w/ the additional cutscenes.

So why would GA go thru the trouble of porting the DC iso to PC when all they had to do was update the PC one that was already based on the PS2 port?

GA didn't do the old PC port. It was done by Ubisoft and the old PC port was terrible. On top of that the Dreamcast version is the best version of the game.

[ArtVandelay]

^ Ubisoft published the original DC version as well as the PS2/PC re-release, so if it was a license issue from Ubisoft, then GA wouldn't even be able to port the DC iso.

[Derangel]

Originally posted by Dee Barksdale:

^ Ubisoft published the original DC version as well as the PS2/PC re-release, so if it was a license issue from Ubisoft, then GA wouldn't even be able to port the DC iso.

Ubisoft DEVELOPED the PC port.

[ArtVandelay]

^ Both GameFAQs and Wikipedia have GA listed as developing the PS2/PC port w/ Ubisoft publishing it in the West.

But this re-release is definitely based on the DC version and was probably picked since the DC version is considered the best. If the PS2/PC re-release was higher rated, then we may have gotten the extra cut-scenes.

[BONKERS]

Originally posted by terry309:

Originally posted by Azure Sky:

Just cutscenes from what I understand...They looked kinda out of place compared to the rendered ones in the DC version.

Meh I liked them... heck I liked the PS2 version, never understood the hate. I had no problems with it.

It was a buggy POS that had tons of framerate problems. I was once like you and the game IS completeable but it's not a good port

[cowbell]

PS2 had terrible slowdown in towns. Battles had characters looking like pink outlines or textureless ghosts.