PDA

View Full Version : Resident Evil 4 for PS2 also Looking Good


BoyTRaider
20-05-05, 22:29
The PS2 version isn't to suck like Nintendo fanboys are saying, go to gamespot and you'll see how it looks like!
It's awesome! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/jumper.gif

Thorn
20-05-05, 22:42
I really want to add it to my PS2 collection! :D But the release date is so far away. :(

RavenLettan
21-05-05, 01:21
I guess we've seen different footage... the game looses a lot of the quality and atmopshere without the high-quality models and shaders.

I'll put up some comparison shots a little later to show the difference. Looks just like Outbreak to me..

although what does annoy me is what appears to be they've added new content. if they have i'm going to run a boycott against further capcom games. > :(

Smith will Suffice
21-05-05, 02:45
the versions looks almost identical.

the gamecube is barely more powerful than the PS2.

ps2 will have no problem recreating the game.

its not even that amazing looking on gamecube if u ask me.

i think games like god of war and the ico titles are superior to resident evil 4.

-Smith

bumb1ebee
21-05-05, 08:21
^ nope, are you kidding me? Did you play Resident Evil 4 on the gamecube? I've played both Resident Evil 4 and Ico, and I have to tell you ICO is definitely not superior to RE4 when it comes to graphics.

RavenLettan
21-05-05, 16:27
the versions looks almost identical.
Except for the fact that there is no HDR, Depth of Field, Motion Blurring, Shadows, Normal Mapping, High Resolution Textures, Per Pixel Lighting, Reactive Physics, etc..

But apart from those small differences, your completely right... they do look almost identical http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

the gamecube is barely more powerful than the PS2.dude.. your not serious are you? c'mon, that has to be some sort of joke.

its not even that amazing looking on gamecube if u ask me.sorry, but what?
Even X-Box owners have admited that it's currently the best looking game on the market (excluding PC titles)

Jeez it's like Sony have brain washed you or something.. the PS2 isn't even in the same weight class as the GC & XB.

Smith will Suffice
21-05-05, 17:23
no im am serious raven.

its not that great. there are much better looking games that Re4

and its also true that the the GC is hardly more powerful than PS2.

clearly nintendo must have YOU brainwashed.

because its not the best looking game on any system now.

-Smith

RavenLettan
22-05-05, 00:40
[quote]and its also true that the the GC is hardly more powerful than PS2.[quote]

oki let's put something into perspective for you.

Playstation 2
- Dhrystone 450 MIPS
- Whetstone 6.2 GFLOPS ( CPU 6.2 : GPU 0.0 )
- 8 Million Triangles Per Second (In-Game) / 25 Million Triangles Per Second (Benchmark)
- Shader 0.0

X-Box
- Dhrystone 1980 MIPS
- Whetstone 83.0 GFLOPS ( CPU 2.93 : GPU 80.0 )
- 42 Million Triangles Per Second (In-Game) / 116 Million Triangles Per Second (Benchmark)
- Shader 1.3

GameCube
- Dhrystone 1125 MIPS
- Whetstone 10.5 GFLOPS ( CPU 1.94 : GPU 8.6 )
- 12 Million Triangles Per Second (In-Game) / 48 Million Triangles Per Second (Benchmark)
- Shader 2.0

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif I'm a little dubious about the X-Box benchmark scores I've seen.. given on the PC that GPU isn't quite that powerful, and I'm also sure that rather than testing.

There is a small advantage that the PS2 does have over the other consoles with the fact it can render 50% extra polygons for terrain areas on the CPU.. this could just about bring it up to be able to render the same amount of polygons, but you have to sacrifice ALOT of things.

The Benchmark scores I added, as those are the polygons that can be drawn by the system when using FULL system resources to render the world.

Textured, Shaded, Lit, etc.. Still the game environment quality but without AI/Physics/Etc..

Something else to note is that the GameCube has a Hidden Surface Remover (HSR).
This means that while the PS2 and X-Box will have a 200,000 polygon scene (onscreen) (@60fps=12,000,000 rendered) they will have to render all of those polygons. Meaning they'll have 12million Rendered.. The GameCube on the other hand will strip any unvieable polygons.

This means scenes with 200,000 polygons will often be reduced by over half.. meaning it'll only render 6million polygons. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Overall worlds can effectively be doubled in size without affecting the output.

It is also good to note that the speed of the GameCube rendering is based on 1080i Rendering. As it'll render out at the exact same speed at NTSC (720x480), the other consoles however are only NTSC with this scores.

For the X-Box this means you can effectively half the polycount again if the game is designed to use 1080i HDTV. (like Halo for example)

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

http://www.electronictheatre.co.uk

The features the GPU of the GameCube for the even the X-Box to try to emulate would eat away at the overall performance of the machine.

The figures don't lie, neither do the titles available for the consoles. Quite frankly games like Zelda : The Wind Waker, look absolutely gorgeous.. Not that a PS2-Fanatic like yourself would ever play them to find that out.

It's easy to claim a game is beautiful at 640x480 reduced resolution Quicktime output.. they're designed to make you buy the game.

Once you get them home those the sheer difference that even HDTV makes to a game is incredible. Sorry but Pixel Clear Graphics with Full-Sceen Sub-Pixel Anti-Aliasing.. is soo smooth you DON'T need to have a 2:1K Pixel output of the PS3 http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

And unlike the X-Box the GameCube has these features activated in EVERY game.. not just those specially developed around the feature.