Quote:According to the latest issue of CG World, a Japanese magazine, Capcom stated that it is difficult to port Resident Evil 4, to the Playstation hardware. They went to say, that the biggest issue is the memory size. Moreover they have problems with the polygon count. Leon’s model in the GameCube version features about 10,000 polygons, while the PS2 can only render 5,000. Capcom also added, that the model of Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater features 5,000 polygons. They only good thing about PS2, is that it can use of more textures at a time, but Capcom also said that there must be a balance between the number of textures and their quality.
Those crazy PS2-ers don't need it anyway. Go play GTA 10, you posers.
Cube-Europe
I'm sure it will be just as good! Yup!
Oh, and doesn't stuff like this really reinforce how obvious it is that when companies port a game to GC they should base it off the PS2 version, of course? They're so close graphically!
The GC's closer to the Xbox than it is the PS2, but I suppose to them it's easier to go from the PS2 to the GC. Probably since they see the GC as providing them with less sells they make a PS2 version and an XBox version and then just take the path of least resistance. It makes since in a twisted, evil corporation sort of way...
Well, well it's just easier than having to rework everything. Plus, they kinda don't want to alianate those who bought what would become the inferior version.
Eh
Anyway, if Capcom is going to give people a reason to get the PS2 version of RE4, which most likely will be visually inferior (unless they find a way to make it look as good with lower polys and compressed textures), they will likely want to add exclusives. RE4 for PS2 is most likely going to have gameplay features aplenty added... or maybe they'll just put Megaman in there somewhere...
Ever since Capcom announced that they were going to port RE4 to the PS2, I had a wierd feeling that graphics were going to be a major problem. Serves Capcom abd those damn PS2ers right...
I don't know a whole lot about what changes their making, but one is an added a weapon swap button. Apparently, that was a complaint by some people, that you had to go to the item menu to change weapons. Personally, I liked it that way because it prevented me from accidentally going to the wrong weapon and then getting attacked by a Russian zombie.
This is all I have to say about that.
![[Image: jeanclizaude.gif]](http://www.zombiesupastar.com/images/jeanclizaude.gif)
I thought RE4 didn't have zombies.
Also, I can't really figure out why they call this one 4, when there were like a dozen RE games in-between 3 and 4.
Because none of them were called '4'... REmake is a remake, 0 a prequel, Code Veronica has no number, and those PS2 online games are spinoffs... so the next one is 4. :)
Even though Code Veronica could have been 4 easily :D.
But yes, in a very direct way ABF pretty much has it. It's called 4 because they didn't name any of the other ones 4. You know, like when you ask why something happened in a movie and someone says "because it was in the script".
GR, don't be all "the lack of a feature is better". That's fanboyism! :D Really though, there's no way to know if that weapon switch button would be easy to accidently press or placed somewhere where you would have to choose to use it. In and of itself, switching weapons on the fly is better, like using L and R to switch weapons in Megaman.
Quote:But yes, in a very direct way ABF pretty much has it. It's called 4 because they didn't name any of the other ones 4. You know, like when you ask why something happened in a movie and someone says "because it was in the script".
It's kind of a stupid answer, but it's the only one... why wasn't Code: Veronica called 4? I don't know... all I can think of is that they wanted to only put numbers on the ones on the PSX and that game came out on Dreamcast...
RE4 has zombies, the living dead, but they have all their mental faculties intact. Does that make them not zombies any more? I dunno...
Quote:In and of itself, switching weapons on the fly is better, like using L and R to switch weapons in Megaman.
I liked going to the item menu to switch weapons because I knew exactly what weapon I needed and having a quick swap just doesn't seem to me like it would help. If some guys are right in front me and I have the pistol out I want to switch to the shotgun. I don't want to accidentally switch to the rifle, that's not going to help at all. I assume you'll still be able to go to the menu, but really the only reason you'd need a quick swap is if you needed to quickly pull out another weapon because guys are coming at you.
Quote:RE4 has zombies, the living dead, but they have all their mental faculties intact.
Technically, they're not "dead". They're being controlled by parasites that reside within their body. They do act kind of like zombies sometimes, though. They are smarter and faster, however.
I still call them zombies all the time though...
Because they are pretty much zombies.
When they can take a bullet to the heart and keep on coming, they are zombies to me. Let me put it this way. If the creature would die if the parasite or virus was safely removed, due to sheer trauma they could only sustain DUE to the thing, then they are zombies.
Pretty much. But not really.
Well the thing about zombies is they, by definition are NOT dead anyway. They are undead, which literally means "not dead". They just aren't very alive... They are the dead that now live, the living dead. How people got this neo hippy idealism that they are both dead and alive at the same time, which doesn't even make sense, is beyond me. So no need to think "how do you kill something that's already dead?" because at the moment, it's not very dead at all. You use the power of a shotgun to remove the "un" from undead :D.
Unlike zombies though, they still retain some of the intelligence and are able to communicate to one another and use, a small amount, of strategy against you instead of just shambling around, though they do that sometimes too. The thing with zombies is that they are people who died and then are brought back to some kind of unlife, while the guys in RE4 haven't died...yet.
The first zombie movie, Night of the Living Dead, was an allegory for how George Romero saw society at the time that he made the movie. The concept of a zombie does not make sense because the entire thing is a metaphor.
Well vampires are undead but they just go from human to vampire straight away without actually being dead, but like, if you did uncurse them, they would instantly die...
Or something...
But it doesn't really come out that way on film, OB1. :) Zombiessss... braiiinnnsss... KILL! And that's about it much of the time. :D
Yeah, zombies are pretty mindless... ya really can't tell a good story with zombies at all. The most you can do is tell the story of the humans well, which is what RE tries to do. Honestly I find the notes written by other humans, ones who usually didn't make it, to be more interesting and compelling than the character I'm actually playing as though.
Oh well, no matter. I figure that's why old societies focused more on werewolf, vampire, and of course witch epidemics, than the more mindless threats to their throats.
A Black Falcon Wrote:But it doesn't really come out that way on film, OB1. :) Zombiessss... braiiinnnsss... KILL! And that's about it much of the time. :D
Hell I've never even seen the movie, but that's what it was all about. So whether Romero executed that well enough or not, the fact still remains that zombies were never supposed to be believable creatures that made any sense whatsoever.
Those chainsaw guys in RE4 are scary...
You mean the guys running around with chainsaws and a bag covering their faces? Yeah, they remind me of something... I can't quite put my digit on it but...
Oklahomans?
Ooooh, PWNED!!!!
More like OKLAHOMA Chainsaw Massacre!
OOOH PWNED AGAIN!!!!
Oh yeah? Well like what I found in your Jedi sketch book!
Hahaha, how awesomely horrible. Old Boy is awesome, though.
Quote:Hahaha, how awesomely horrible.
I do my best!
...
Worst.