> GameCube owners may be tasting the bitterness of defeat,
but what we see here should take some of the edge off of it. When summarizing
the differences between the original (as in the originally developed for
from the ground up) GameCube version and following Playstation
2 conversion of Resident Evil 4, I'm not quite sure
why so many reviewers keep de-emphasizing the graphical imperfections in
the PS2 port as if they are only "minor" ones and overlooking
the fact that the game almost seems to have been recreated for the PS2
in places. I wish I shared their enthusiasm. I truly do! Contrary to popular
belief, the differences are far from "minor" let me assure you. Textures
are always where we'd see the biggest difference (the PS2
isn't exactly a texturing beast) and it's abundantly clear from the image
comparisons I've seen with my own two eyes that the game has duller non-anti-aliased
lower resolution (less natural, more artificial) textures covering less
polygons in the PS2 version, exposing drastic scenery changes
for all to see making this recreation all too apparent to anyone who knows
what they are looking for (there are more subtle differences apart from
rougher edges like less trees and fewer tree branches to which many will
no doubt turn a blind eye). The frame rate dropping during boss fights,
longer loading times, pre-rendered recordings of cutscenes that were running
real-time before (this was clever work-around/shortcut by Capcom
to create the illusion of both versions seeming no different from one another
in the eyes of casual gamers), and sound effects losing their crispness
complete the portrait of a game suffering from all the problems associated
with porting issues (or more to be more specific: memory limitations).
> I expected more than a mere watered down port from such a hyped up console.
I really did! The game's textures have lost a lot of their richness, meaning
they are darker and have lost their luster. Light sourcing, which is the
key to building an eerie environment with surprises lurking in the shadows,
seems diluted here too (reminding me of the toned down light rays penetrating
the water in the PS2 port of Ecco: DOTF which
are now nowhere near as pervasive as the ones seen the Dreamcast
original), or simply non-existent and replaced with static surface shading
where the light should hit. But a game drained of color and lighting can't
be a bad thing, or can it? Even if RE4 for the PS2
isn't an exact replica of the GC version (immature brand
loyalty is blinding people to the truth), it's a decent port overall by
all accounts with true widescreen support (albeit in a lower resolution
to accommodate it without screeching to a grinding halt) unlike the GC
version's black border letterbox display faking the impression of widescreen.
With Sony loyalists bragging so loudly, who can forget that
the PS2 port also has extra cutscenes and extended gameplay
that will make PS2 owners feel like they own the definitive
version and the rest of us so-so envious? Its truer to say that the PS2
port isn't quite as close to the original as reviewers would have us believe
(see for yourself), but thanks to this willingness to overlook these aforementioned
differences, everyone believes/has been led to believe that the PS2
version is an identical port only now with extra content, apparently making
it far "superior". Even if the graphics are a little worse for wear, the
extra content alone has given PS2 owners bragging rights.
> The PS2 really isn't that much better than the Dreamcast,
yet everyone bought into this perception Sony was selling
(the PS2 doesn't outperform the DC by a long
stretch and certainly didn't back in 2000 when the PS2's
rushed, unfinished launch titles ended up looking worse than high-end DC
games, disappointing gamers who felt they were given false hopes). "Low
polygon counts" in PS2 ports of DC games were
the kiss of death regardless of the fact that the PS2 can
only handle 2-3 times as many as the DC's peak performance
most of the time *only now* in optimum *game conditions* (i.e. not when
just displaying mere wire-frames), yet no one seemed to have a care in
the world when the roles were reversed with the GC/Xbox and
PS2
as if they are all somehow in the same league. Since everyone was making
such a big deal out of polygon counts and graphical performance when the
PS2
first arrived, why stop now? It's amazing how graphics matter one moment,
then cease to matter the next when it best suits people, isn't it? Why
be content with the polygon counts the PS2 can churn out
to produce fine graphics when the newer consoles can push out even more
to produce even finer graphics?!
> To be fair, the average gamer might not be able to tell the difference
which reinforces the perception of the leap between the PS2
and later consoles only being a "negligible" one (like I wrote once before,
graphics have reached a point even on this generation's earlier consoles
that they no longer matter as long as they don't detract from gameplay).
Can we have greater miracles than these? What I find distasteful is how
people suddenly want to play Resident Evil 4 after it was
announced for the PS2 when gamers knew for a long time beforehand
that it was coming to the GameCube exclusively (Capcomdidn't
make a secret out of it). There's more to Capcom bringing
RE4
to the GC than an exclusivity deal in case anyone has forgotten.
Instead of this "exclusive" influencing what console gamers wanted to buy,
most naturally leaned towards the console most firmly entrenched in the
popular culture as if it wasn't going anywhere. In other words, the most
recognizable brand name with the self-fulfilling prophecy of unquestionable
staying power oozing from every pore won the day. Unfortunately, the Resident
Evil brand wasn't recognizable enough to pull enough gamers away
from the PS2 and lure them towards the
GC to
make a significant difference. Anyone who thinks it's
Capcom's
own fault for not putting this game on the console that was predestined
to claim most of the market for itself in the first place really is missing
the point. Trying to capture a good user base to encourage more developers
to come onboard is a vicious cycle because you can't build up a decent
audience without bringing more support onboard; you can't blame Capcom
for trying to make a difference. It's not something Capcom
will or should live to regret.
> The more discerning gamers among us knew from the start of the conversion
process that the game's textures would take a (serious) nose-dive, so no
surprises there. Capcom must have worked around the clock
to keep the PS2 port almost fully intact even if the GC
version's near-flawless visuals didn't "quite" cross-over. Now where's
the upgraded Xbox version (as opposed to a downgraded one)
with Dolby 5.1 surround sound, Capcom? There's a whole other
(more advanced developer friendly) console with a 20 million strong installed
user base just begging to play this game (most) without being forced to
buy another console. I guess they can settle for a solid port of Half
Life 2 from the PC instead with its visuals that almost look like
they came out of a next generation title (Where's the PS2
version? I hear someone cry). Just think of what could be added when flexing
all that extra graphical muscle.
> Sony only put 4 MBs of texture RAM in the PS2
because Sony *knew long in advance* that the PS2
would take over the market in no small part due to it being in extremely
high demand. Since the Dreamcast couldn't hope to compete
against exaggerations concerning the PS2's power stemming
from the bowels of such a trusted brand, quickly sinking under a wave of
hype/lies, the assumed "far superior" PS2 would face little
in the way of firm competition holding its ground for almost 2 years after
launch, giving it the head start it needed to worm its way into the public
eye and people nowhere else to turn when theirs broke down. Having such
a trustworthy brand meant there was no real need for Sony
to outdo the little competition that there was. And look at all the good
that did. This is the kind of complacency that sets in when people face
no one in the position or with the resources to fight back. Let's see how
trustworthy the Sony brand is now after making so many promises
it couldn't keep (processors that are so powerful that they are "liberating"
to work with!). Where's the harm in a little competition to loosen Sony's
stranglehold on the industry anyway? Without the driving force that is
developers and console manufacturers competing against one another by providing
more engaging experiences than the other (or risk losing out) games wouldn't
evolve. Would Sony had even bothered with online games if
Sega
and Microsoft hadn't paved the way for them by using them
as a selling point in their respective consoles (the
Dreamcast
and Xbox, respectively)? That's why we should welcome competition
with open arms, otherwise suffer the consequences of being stuck with someone
who doesn't know the meaning of the word.
> In all honesty, how was anyone supposed to compete with Sony
when *it* simply dug deep into *its* deep(er) pockets to bribe everyone
for their support? Sony has proven that all you really need
to market and sustain a successful console is money (especially to keep
one firmly under the spotlight), and lots of it (it takes more than brute
force to win the support of gamers as the more capable GC
slipping into third place has shown). Why has hardly anyone recognized
Sony's
ruthless monopolizing for what it really is? Is it simply a case of no
one caring when you don't actually have to choose what console to buy?
Let's put all the best games on one console! Some people are just too small-minded
to grasp the bigger picture. Let's not forget
Sony's attempts
to ban 2D games completely even though there was still a strong market
for them in Japan towards the end of the Saturn era according
to Sega of Japan's own president, Shouichirou Irimajiri,
at the time (hence Capcom's stance against
Sony's
monopoly which didn't pay off in the end). After all, when you own most
of the marketshare, you can do almost anything you want with impunity (like
setting or curbing trends instead of merely reflecting them); who's going
to stop you? Look at how the market favored the least capable console for
the larger part of this generation. Fortunately for us and unfortunately
for Sony zealots, Sony isn't the one with the
deepest pockets anymore. With the Xbox 360 charging full
steam ahead (to "bring balance to the Force") with no sign of running out
of gas, Sony has its work cut out for it to stay ahead of
the pack for a change. Who's going to stay true to Sony when
they are no longer forced to do so?
> Let's hope Capcom survives despite ailing fortunes to bring
us more top-quality games like this one in the future. Of course, less
discerning gamers are still wondering why Resident Evil 4
wasn't a PS2 exclusive to begin with. Wake up. It's important
to remember that there's more to this debacle than meets the eye, especially
now that Resident
Evil 5 is coming to both the Playstation 3 *and*
Xbox
360,
giving neither next generation console an exclusive edge, which is exactly
what Capcom wants despite the wide-spread notion that the
PS3
has already won the next console war long before the first salvo has even
been fired.
Pictures
courtesy of www.thehorrorisalive.com
Good
Gaming,
-Geoffrey
Duke
What
do you think? Email (comprehensible English
only)
