Resident Evil 4 on Xbox

What "source" did you hear this from Quincy? I believe Factor 5 came quite close, also what architectural problems/bottlenecks would prevent a proficient developer from "coding to the metal?" I'm curious.

 

Possibly because Nintendo advises against it in a rather strong way. They sure didn't want SEGA getting too close to the metal on the Gamecube...

 

You don't have to code to the metal of a console in order to optimise a game for that consoles particular strengths. If putting RE4 onto XBox was at all trivial then I'm sure we'd have seen an announcement for it by now.

 

Like i said before, I don't think there's anything the gamecube can do in a released game that can't be done on xbox in one way or the other.

You and I both know that it being "trivial" isn't the only factor.

 

You still haven't answered my question Qroach, or were you talking w/out any legitimate source? No one is saying that the port is unacheivable, but to say that both the GC's as well as the PS2's architectural strengths are present in the XBX is more than stretching. Btw, any game can be ported but sacrifices will be present in console specific designed engines.

 

I think it's technically possible for Xbox to have near identical port of RE4. Heck they may even be able to get rid if the fake widescreen with the xbox having more memory and faster GPU . But on a technical note doesnt the GC flipper chip have HSR (hidden surface removal) I wonder how much that was employed in RE4. judging from the wooded area.The 5 mins I played of it I was very impressed. Clearly shows the GC can hold its own with the xbox and pounces all over the ps2. I don't see how the ps2 port will look nearly as good or keep nearly the same framerate.

 

if ports being trivial was the only factor involved with japanese companies than I'd be playing VF: Evo in full glory on xbox right now.

 

It would probably take quite a bit of work to port the game to Xbox, I don't think anyone here is denying that. And if they are they don't have common knowledge of how porting a game to one console from another works. It would take quite a bit of work to port RE4 to the Xbox and there would probably be some sacrifices that Capcom would make to get it running on the system. Overall, I do believe if Capcom spent enough time with it the version on Xbox would be superior.

 

I'll put this like I usually put "porting" issues. Each of the three main consoles out right now have, both strengths, and weaknesses. While I generally concede that you could create a "superior" Resident Evil 4 on Xbox, the question becomes, "in which way would it be superior?"... Would a PS2 version have better particle effects but lower resolution poly meshes and lesser texture and lighting quality? Would an Xbox version have better lighting effects and higher resolution textures, but less of them? Generalizing a bit, these machines all have atleast similar brute force, and a version could be adapted to run quite well on any of them? What pros and cons would each version have though? There couldn't be a clear victor, if proper time/resources was/were given to produce each version correctly (in a manner tailored specifically and favourably) for their target platform, could there?

Just a thought though.

Let the debating begin!!

G'night

Me

 

Yeah in general thats true, but in this case? Exclusivity is a big factor for porting games. But thats no longer the case for RE4. Capcom are looking to sell as many copies of RE4 as they can on any system that will give them a good return. The PS2 port will be tough to achieve but they hope it will be worthwhile due to its massive userbase. If putting the game on XBox was trivial in the slightest then they would do it AFAICS. I'm sure they could make a RE4 game on XBox, but no doubt it would need significant recoding.

 

IMO, porting any game between Xbox and Gamecube would be far easier than anything from / to the PS2.
Xbox and Gamecube have a "reasonably similar" graphics architecture and features (which is probably the biggest hurdle in porting). That's not to say it would be trivial to do so, quite often there is other factors involved (3rd party libs not available on all platforms for example).

 

Well i'm sure PS2 gamers will be very happy with DMC3, waiting for RE4.

 

all this talk has got me wondering... apart from it sucking why hasn't capcom released outbreak on xbox. surely it would sell with live support.

 

No, it wouldn't since Capcom charges extra costs.

 

Even the most particle and alpha-blended-heavy scenes in a PlayStation2 game like Zone of the Enders 2 or Metal Gear Solid 2 still couldn't get by without high usage of the textured fillrate, so I doubt their demands ever actually rise beyond the Xbox's capabilities. Same with the number of moving and animating objects in the Jak games.

The subtle touches to the way a game runs and plays, such as the smoothness of the engine and its load times and like the intuitiveness of the control layout and its conception even, result from characteristics of the system around which the game was originally designed and developed. Transplanting the game into the differently sized mold of another system breaks that polish and tuning. Ports are usually buggier, too, so some of the most satisfying parts of the experience as well as access to other GameCube games like exlcusive Resident Evils would be lost by passing up on a GameCube and waiting for the uncertainty of an Xbox version.

 

Why do you need much *textured fill-rate* for particles?

 

I was saying the opposite. Even the games with the strongest particle effects, which would take advantage of the PlayStation2's untextured fillrate more than usual, are still having to texture in the scene enough to keep the fillrate requirements within the range of Xbox.

 

There's a interview in the latest EGM with Kobayashi, when asked about the borders he said that the borders were implemented because the camera comes in closer when the character start aiming. So it was used to increase the view space, if left in the standard view the gamer view of the terrain and in coming enemies would have been hindered. Which would have made the game more frustrating.

Whether or not any of you, except that other than notions that it was implemented because they couldn't keep a sustainable framerate, is up to you. I don't see why that would be something he would want to hide.

 

That sounds reasonable. 3rd person cameras are a tricky thing, so I can understand that.

 

He should run for public office. That's the best BS I've ever heard. [/code]