Biohazard 2 Remake on the way?

[kevstah2004]

The 4:3 letterboxing sucks though on the GC.

[Skunky]

it was compressed so much on the ps2 that the sounds were terrible and the graphics where horrible and blocky.

The ps2 version of RE4 dosn't look as sharp as the GC but I don't think there's THAT much difference in graphics.
When I found out about all the extras to be included in the ps2 version I stopped trying to unlock everything on the GC and then switched to playing the ps2 port. I've been playing it ever since... I now play it in widescreen and it still looks pretty nice.
I've got no desire to get rid of the laser site in place of a red circle waggled around with the Wiimote, so the ps2 is my favorite version.

As for the ps2 not being powerful enough to handle Remake and Zero, I doubt it...
Recently I've been replaying Shadow of the Colossus on my HDTV, running it 480p widescreen and it still looks incredible.

[Umon Daisuke]

i have a ps1,2 and 3 and a gamecube, and i must say i prefer re4 on gamecube to the ps2, it was compressed so much on the ps2 that the sounds were terrible and the graphics where horrible and blocky. the Gamecube is deffintily more powerful than the ps2

How does what you said contradict my post? As I said, RE4 PS2 was ported fairly quickly, and in turn some shortcomings were apparent, due to the differences in systems' architectures. It didn't look or sound terrible despite poor audio porting(SW excluded since it used a PS2 specific code), but the GC original still looked better. It was a competent port where most assets were re-done.

The first two GC games were far simpler technically, so my point stands.

[kevstah2004]

IMO the remake graphics are miles better than RE4 on GC the lighting effects in the dinning room alone outshine RE4. zer0 could probably run on the PS2 no problem.
Plus it still it doesn't make sense to me that they compressed the audio, video & images from the GC version when the 2 GC mini-dvd's only equal 2.8GB when compared to a 4.7GB ps2 dvd it kinda pisses me off too that the smackdown games on the ps2 don't use dual layer dvd9's for higher quality images for the caw mode but that's another issue entirely.

[Umon Daisuke]

All pre-rendered, with the exception of the lightning (which was used in RE4). Zero did look better with higher character poly count and more detailed backgrounds than the remake. Either way, you're looking at 30fps games that used pre-rendered backgrounds; not exactly what you call taxing on the hardware. However, because of that, they look MUCH better than RE4 aesthetically, though not in motion.

Time constraint is the main reason for those quirks that don't quite add up. Re-working all character models for the cutscenes, and going for higher rendering resolution (hence the images you're speaking of), and re-encoding audio samples would've taken more time. The audio quirk had nothing to do with storage, and more with the fact that the GC has auxiliary RAM (16MB) that developers can use for audio. Audio processing overall differs quite a bit on both systems, so with the RAM issue, simple porting doesn't quite work well. VJ1 had the same issue.. actually much worse since even stereo wasn't that good on the PS2.

If you play Separate Ways, you'll notice that the audio (the music at least) is higher quality than the main game on the PS2.

That's not to say that they could've replicated the GC original perfectly on the PS2, but some obvious issues would've been redeemed with more time.

Speaking of audio, the remake's samples and music were downsampled as they were learning the hardware at the time it seems. Some of the music tracks ended up sounding quite a bit different in the game. I'd highly recommend checking out the remake OST.

[Scott Green]

Despite the compressed sound on the PS2 Version, this version has it's old PS2 Problem. Jagged or blocky patterns/edges. The GC version looked better there. But since PS2 has more extra stuff I'm sticking to that like Skunky said...
I don't have a wii yet so the wii-version is no option for me right now, but I'd probably have it if i had a wii..

[biohazard_star]

IMO the remake graphics are miles better than RE4 on GC the lighting effects in the dinning room alone outshine RE4. zer0 could probably run on the PS2 no problem.

Zero actually has better graphics than REmake.

[kevstah2004]

^ I beg to differ.
Zero looks faded over cell shading gives it a washed out feeling it's more noticeable on billy's model cos the purple and blank don't blend together as good as Rebbecca's white and green also zero is basically a up-scaled and reworked n64 game remake was built from scratch for the gamecube just like re4.

[biohazard_star]

That would be from your subjective viewpoint. Zero had more animated backgrounds than REmake, slightly improved character models, and an almost real-time character swapping system. That is a fact. So if anything, it would be Zero which will have a hard time running on the PS2.

zero is basically a up-scaled and reworked n64 game remake was built from scratch for the gamecube just like re4.

Replace 'zero' with 'REmake' (and vice-versa)and 'n64' with 'PSX', and that sentence would still make sense.

[Umon Daisuke]

I'm with star here. REmake and Zero ran on test engines of the GC hardware (developed on PC), and I find it hard that anyone mistakes Zero for an upcaled N64 game. Yes, it did use filtering similar to RE4 so it has more of a coherent, softer look compared to the rougher remake (some people didn't like it). Artistically, the background artists did a better job on Zero. Backgrounds were just perfect compared to the often excessively dark remake ones.

Zero also made good use of the aux RAM on the GC for smoother loading, so if it were ported to the PS2, loading times would be longer with the zapping system. I reckon similar to the early demo that took about 6 seconds.

[kevstah2004]

That would be from your subjective viewpoint. Zero had more animated backgrounds than REmake, slightly improved character models, and an almost real-time character swapping system. That is a fact. So if anything, it would be Zero which will have a hard time running on the PS2.



Replace 'zero' with 'REmake' (and vice-versa)and 'n64' with 'PSX', and that sentence would still make sense.

Hardly although remake is based on re1 for the ps1 it has completely different room layouts, camera angles and extra rooms etc. zero on other hand was cut short in development halfway through and shifted to another console your telling me they took all there knowledge they gained making zero "yes zero pre-dates remake development wise even though it was released after remake" and used it to make a poorer looking game.

[biohazard_star]

remake is based on re1 for the ps1 it has completely different room layouts, camera angles and extra rooms etc.

Please don't tell me that you seriously think they just "reused" and "spiffed up" most of the stuff in the n64 version, since that is just highly ignorant. No offense.

they took all there knowledge they gained making zero and used it to make a poorer looking game.

How exactly was the game poorer? Is it poorer in visual presentation, graphics, or what? Do explain.

[kevstah2004]

Please don't tell me that you seriously think they just "reused" and "spiffed up" most of the stuff in the n64 version, since that is just highly ignorant. No offense.

They didn't remake the whole game engine did they? no they took all their work they had made during development of the n64 version and translated it into a gamecube title "it's like when a new games console comes out all the first title releases look poor compared to when they finally work out how to fully utilize the hardware compare smackdown jbi to htp and you'll see how
much better the graphics are jbi looks like a upscaled ps1 game" it's the only re title to do so, look at re4 that went through x amounts of builds before they settled on the Spanish one the storyline and layout of zero for the gc is exactly the same as the n64 version give or take.

How exactly was the game poorer? Is it poorer in visual presentation, graphics, or what? Do explain.

You where the one who said zero had better character models than remake, remake could of easy had character swapping but wouldn't of fit in the whole survivor horror presentation your supposed to be a character stuck in a dark mansion struggling to find a way out without any outside help, zero's double teaming killed all of that.

[biohazard_star]

They didn't remake the whole game engine did they? no they took all their work they had made during development of the n64 version and translated it into a gamecube title

Story and gameplay-wise yes. Programming-wise, NO. JUST NO.

it's like when a new games console comes out all the first title releases look poor compared to when they finally work out how to fully utilize the hardware compare smackdown jbi to htp and you'll see how

REmake was made as a testbed for making RE games on the NGC. An improved and modified version of it's engine was used for Zero. Thank you for proving my point.

re4 that went through x amounts of builds before they settled on the Spanish one the storyline and layout of zero for the gc is exactly the same as the n64 version give or take.

They changed RE4 because they weren't satisfied with it. They were satisfied with how Zero played out. Why would they want to change something they're satisfied with it? Also, why the hell would they want to add additional rooms and crap when no one ever played the n64 version. No one would've given a damn, let alone even know, that they added in more rooms. There's absolutely no friggin point.

zero's double teaming killed all of that.

Again, that's subjective.

Oh, and BTW, use periods when typing paragraphs. IT'S.NOT.HARD.

[BLSR1]

ARGUMENT!

REmake and RE0 could both run on the PS2. But they would look shittier than their gamecube counterparts. I say this solely on experience.

But seriously who cares? Capcom isn't going to release those two games on the PS2.