Resident Evil 4 PS2 Porting Problems

An anonymous reader writes "Gamesarefun is reporting that Capcom is having serious difficulty in porting Resident Evil 4, to Sony's PlayStation 2. The numbers behind the graphical differences are interesting, since Capcom sites a few specifics. Apparently the original model for Leon Kennedy in the GameCube version has had to be scaled down from 10,000 polygons to 5000 for the PS2 version, which is equal to both the poly count for Naked Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3 as well as the poly count of the typical villager in the GameCube version of RE4."

Re:PS2 that underpowered

[vasqzr]

They key is memory. The PS2 (which came out earlier) doesn't have as much RAM as the GC for this type of thing. So the textures have to be less detailed, 8/4 bit instead of 24 bit, and they can't have as many polygons...

On the other hand, in some games it goes the OTHER way, the GC discs do not have as much space as the PS2's DVD discs, so sometimes the Gamecube version of a game has less detail.

Re:So I can't figure out...

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Of course it's good for Nintendo, this is why they are still in business. They have a great little console, which (in my opinion) is more powerful than the PS2.

I'm not a Sony basher, I love my PS2, my GTA series, and Gran Turismo, but most games that have been developed for both systems look a little bit nicer on the GameCube.

Incredible insight!

[cluke]

While I have no doubt that for many applications the PS2 is less powerful than the gamecube, this article is just guff.

"The PS2, does however, have a large Direct Memory Access bandwidth, which will allow the developers to provide a high amount of textures into the game."

Well, that sounds good! If it made sense! But didn't he just say we couldn't have a load of textures?
But wait! Some of the textures have had to be reduced from 24-bit to 8 or even "4-bit". Yes, folks, the PS2 is so back they are using 16 colour greyscale! Either that or he's talking out his ass.

His source? "Various Japanese publications." Interesting!

And, despite this uber-DMA, they are still shit out of luck apparently. He continues:
"But, if they choose to do this, the game's framerate will drop substantially, this is due to the PS2's, as stated before, limited texture memory capacity."

Sounds pretty technical, not sure if I can follow that!

Bottom line is, Capcom may or may not be having lots of troubles scaling down their engine for the PS2, but this article is not going to give you any insight whatsoever into the technical reasons for this.

Re:PS2 that underpowered

[mausmalone]

The PS2 isn't necesarily "underpowered," but it is older hardware than the Gamecube. It's weaker for sure, but that's just a sign of its age and not an implication of poor quality. This also has to do with the fact that the game was specifically designed with the Gamecube hardware in mind. Getting it to work on the PS2 is going to be a minor miracle.

This just in!

[Phleg]

Older hardware not as good as newer hardware! Crowds shocked!

On a serious note, I don't really understand why console manufacturers are so tight when it comes to memory. From my experience building personal computers, memory is usually the cheapest way to increase performance (up to a point). A fast processor will go nearly to waste if you don't have the memory to back it up.

The article, though short and not really all that noteworthy, does touch upon something confusing. Having an extremely memory bus means squat if there isn't all that much memory anyways.

Re:This just in!

[mausmalone]

When the PS2 came out, it was a huge leap over the ammount of memory in the PS1 (I believe 32 MB for the PS2 and 2 MB for the PS1... but I may be off). Same with the Gamecube, which has 64 MB total memory (system + graphics) and the N64 (4 MB shared). They figured that it was such an increase over what developers were currently using, that it would take them a while to get any real use out of it. Also, getting 128 MB for only $30 more sounds great for a PC (back then), but when you're talking about a console that's only $200 at launch, that's a 15% increase in price. And, yes, when these systems were designed (not launched), the ammount of memory in them was huge for a console.

Re:Article hazy...

[mausmalone]

The original source was a Japanese CG modeling magazine. They were talking to Capcom graphic designers who do modeling and texture art, not people who program. This is an example of computer specs as percieved by artists.

Re:This just in!

[zulux]

On a serious note, I don't really understand why console manufacturers are so tight when it comes to memory.

The manufactures don't want to get caught with their pants down when it suddenly costs three times as much to buy RAM as is did when the console launched. They can mitigate the risk with options and contracts but it's still a risk that they want to mitigate - considering that companies like Mircosoft have to prop up their flagging console by selling them below cost, it's no wonder that the specs are skimpy.

Re:PS2 that underpowered

[Grey Ninja]

I've been saying for months now that the PS2 wouldn't be able to handle the game. Reason being that Resident Evil 4 is a poster child for the true power of the GameCube. PS2 lacks several things required to make the game really work.

Load times. The GameCube version of the game streams in a lot of data from the disc when navigating through levels. Moving from inside to outside is seamless, and the GameCube has been designed to minimize the effect that this has on gameplay. The PS2 on the other hand... is lucky to even load a codec conversation in MGS.

Level size. The PS2 has but a fraction of the RAM available to the GameCube. The levels in RE4 can quite often be huge, and often have some complex geometry. The closest I've seen on PS2 is MGS3, and having played both.... I assure you that the GameCube is the CLEAR winner in this case. Also of note in this case is Metroid Prime or Eternal Darkness... which both managed to stream the levels off the disc, eliminating load times completely. (In the case of Eternal Darkness, load times were artificially inserted, as the player couldn't react to the new room quick enough). At any rate, this should be a non-issue, given that I've seen many GameCube games without load times, but have yet to see a PS2 game do the same. And levels are almost always bigger on a GameCube than a PS2.

Polygons. They are the nice little things that make a 3D model. GameCube often has upward of 6 or 7 enemies attacking you simultaneously, with a high poly player model, all while rendering incredibly detailed backdrops. Again, the closest thing that I am aware of on the PS2 is MGS3, which never has more than 4 or 5 enemies attacking you... and each with significantly less polys. Also worthy of note, GameCube is still the current leader for most polygons pushed in a console game with Rebel Strike. Rebel Strike pushes upwards of 20 million polys per second, which far outdoes the closest competitor on PS2 or Xbox.

Textures. The PS2 attempts to make up for lack of memory by giving some absolutely insane memory bandwidth. This allows you to swap textures out in memory, but you will not be able to hold nearly as many as the GameCube can. GameCube also has the advantage of 6:1 texture compression. This all results in the color depth of the PS2 textures being greatly reduced. Once again, this is probably going to be related to level size.

Anyways, this is just a few reasons why RE4 on PS2 just won't work.

Re:PS2 that underpowered

[StocDred]

Try riding around San Andreas.

Well yeah, but look at the crappy popup and overall low quality graphics. Particularly when you're in a plane. I love the game, but it sacrifices graphical fortitude for sheer size. Not that that is a bad thing, just that it makes your argument misleading.

Re:PS2 that underpowered

[unclethursday]

Also note that if you are on something fast, like a PCJ motorcycle, you can actually get into areas before the area streams from the disk. For example, in Los Santos, get on a super fast bike, and drive down the eastern straight highway comming from the mountains at full speed. You can go so fast, that you will actually end up driving on the sky, with nothing around you, because the PS2 simply can't load the areas as fast as you are going through them.

I love San Andreas, but you have to be a fool, or a fanboi, or both, to not notice stuff like this happening.

Re:So I can't figure out...

[Grey Ninja]

Well, benchmarks are forbidden by all the console manufacturers. And comparing clock speeds of the different CPUs is not really the best idea IMO. The drastically different architectures just don't give any real meaning clock speeds. The power of the end result often depends on how well put together the machine is. And the winner there is quite clearly the GameCube. If you really take a close look at the hardware of all 3 machines sometime, I think you will find that the GameCube is quite simply amazingly good design.

Oftentimes, you will have to look to the actual games to determine which console is the most powerful. GameCube has Resident Evil 4 and Rebel Strike... (full effects, 18 - 20 million polys per sec) Xbox has Halo 2 (full effects, 7 - 10 million polys per sec)... and PS2 has Metal Gear Solid 3 (not sure on the specs).

I just don't see much meaning in comparing CPU clock rates, or theoretical specs. What really matters is how it performs in the real world.