-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Resident Evil 4 (PS2) - IGN review
- Thread starter Solid
- Start date
Jesus christ... fuck the bitter trolling and flames. If you own either a PS2 or a GCN, this game needs to be bought and played.
Instead of being thankful that it's being brought out on another platform so more people can play it, some people here take it upon themselves to act like fucking retarded douchebags screaming "SUPERIOR VERSION" or 'TEH GCN GRAFIX R BETTAR!". Get a fucking life and just enjoy RE4 no matter what platform it's on.
Instead of being thankful that it's being brought out on another platform so more people can play it, some people here take it upon themselves to act like fucking retarded douchebags screaming "SUPERIOR VERSION" or 'TEH GCN GRAFIX R BETTAR!". Get a fucking life and just enjoy RE4 no matter what platform it's on.
IGN PS2 Review:
10 Gameplay
This is an eye-opening experience. RE4 is a true next-generation game on current consoles. It shatters expectations and delivers an immersive experience that will wow you.
9.5 Lasting Appeal
Plenty of unlockables, a killer set of bonus quests, the arcade-like Mercinaries mode, and a lengthy 20-plus hour quest. Ther's a lot to enjoy.
9.5 OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)
IGN GCN Review:
9.5 Gameplay
The best Resident Evil game ever made. Truly intense. Lots of new compelling gameplay types. Excellent new targeting and action systems. Boss fights are incredible. Satisfying quest.
8.5 Lasting Appeal
At 20-plus hours, a meaty single-player adventure. And because the game tallies hit ratios and kills per area, there's records to be beaten. Plus, there are unlockables.
9.8 overall
I know the not-an-average thing, but WTF? I mean, Gamecube version has lower scores on gameplay and lasting appeal BUT better, and near perfect, overrall score?? Something strange here...
10 Gameplay
This is an eye-opening experience. RE4 is a true next-generation game on current consoles. It shatters expectations and delivers an immersive experience that will wow you.
9.5 Lasting Appeal
Plenty of unlockables, a killer set of bonus quests, the arcade-like Mercinaries mode, and a lengthy 20-plus hour quest. Ther's a lot to enjoy.
9.5 OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)
IGN GCN Review:
9.5 Gameplay
The best Resident Evil game ever made. Truly intense. Lots of new compelling gameplay types. Excellent new targeting and action systems. Boss fights are incredible. Satisfying quest.
8.5 Lasting Appeal
At 20-plus hours, a meaty single-player adventure. And because the game tallies hit ratios and kills per area, there's records to be beaten. Plus, there are unlockables.
9.8 overall
I know the not-an-average thing, but WTF? I mean, Gamecube version has lower scores on gameplay and lasting appeal BUT better, and near perfect, overrall score?? Something strange here...
EternalDarko
Member
I've got too many bloody games to play, so since i've already played the original, i'll skip this. But for those who haven't you really need to buy it and give this game its props. Definately one of the top 3 games of the generation on any console.
I've still got SotC, Black&White2, F.E.A.R and AoE3 to play for the rest of the year before Oblivion hits.
I've still got SotC, Black&White2, F.E.A.R and AoE3 to play for the rest of the year before Oblivion hits.
CVXFREAK said:
So, it's normal to reduce the overall score of a 10 months old game when you increase its gameplay and lasting appeal scores... right?
If you give it the same scores, o reduce them, and then you reduce the total score, i could understand it, but this? No.
Besides, i don't agree with your statement "same game, 10 months later = lower score". It depends on the game, but 10 months... it isn't so much time. Same game = same quality = same score (in this case), imo.
"Shenanigans?"
What?
I think the wait time being 10 months if a legit way to drop the score of the game because it's newness factor has been greatly reduced. It's kinda like saying RE2 and RE3 on GC (although much later than RE4) should have gotten similar scores to the PSone versions because they're the same game. .
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Borys said:
are you talking about the xbox port? it's really not the same game.
I didn't want to buy this again. But it really is one of the best games this gen, and the extras are too much. Guess I'll trade in my old one toward this today.
Dark Spirit
Member
Both versions gameplay are basically the same, but since most people(and at IGN) have already played the GC version the impact for the PS2 version isnt as big. Which is most likely where the extra .3 went. Might not have had that omfgubersex! feeling like when you first played it on the GC ;P
CVXFREAK said:
It's nothing like that at all. RE2 and RE3 on GC were outdated whether a PS1 version was ever released or not. The fact that the genre (and technology) has advanced since the PS1 days that gives RE2 and RE3 on GC a lower score than they got on PS1.
The "newness factor" is irrelevant if most of the people picking up the PS2 version of RE4 have never played the GC game. From all accounts RE4 on PS2 looks and feels like a cutting edge PS2 game, and is overall equal to the GC.
Miburou said:
Your opinion on whether the genre has advanced or not is irrelevent; by this standard, the Famicom mini lineup is a crime to humanity. The fact is, RE2 and RE3 were quality games that got dogged on the GC because they were old ports (not to mention the price). The PS2 RE4 is nowhere near that old, but the wait time is still considerable enough for the game not to be considered innovative anymore. The fact the reviewer probably played the GC version does not help matters, either.
I certainly wouldn't rate it as high. Thrill and newness account for a whole lot more than you seem to be letting on. Although, this is one of those situations where variable scoring would work.
CVXFREAK said:
I'm not sure if you realize it, but you just contradicted yourself. You use the 10 month gap between the two versions to justify the lower score, then you cite the 2-3 year gap between the PS1 and GC versions of RE and RE3 as the sole reason why those games were scored lower. And yet you bring up the Famicom series (which are 20 years old) to try to show that advances in technology and play mechanics have no bearing at all on how a game is rated. By your standard, too, the Famicom mini series should be rated very low.
But in reality, that example does not negate either of our opinions, because a big part of the appeal of that series is the nostalgia factor.
You're missing the point. Of course the reviewer having played the GC version 10 months earlier is not as excited about the PS2 version as he was about the GC version. But the review is written for the target audience, and the target audience most likely has not played the GC version (and those that have, know what they're getting into). Should a reviewer review a game less favorably because he played the Japanese version of that game a year earlier? No, because his target audience most likely did not.
When you think about it, our two views are not that different. If the freshness factor diminishes with time, then it's only logical that it diminishes even faster if there are other similar games that have improved on the formula. My view is just of a more global freshness factor. And my main point of disagreement is that I don't think most people picking up RE4 on PS2 have played the GC version.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Yeah, using old cross generation ports don't really fly in this argument, cause RE4 is still one of the best games 10 months or not, the genre hasn't exactly had anything pushing pass RE4 this pass 10 months either.
EDIT: This seems kind of pointless though as the scores aren't weighted and it's different reviewers, cause if it was weighted like Gamespot, it would be a higher score.
EDIT: This seems kind of pointless though as the scores aren't weighted and it's different reviewers, cause if it was weighted like Gamespot, it would be a higher score.
Miburou said:
No, I didn't contradict myself. RE2 and RE3's GC lower scores are justified BECAUSE of the time that has passed, not because they were bad games at all and it applies to RE4. It was your accusation that time (and a previous edition) shouldn't lower a score. And then you brought up a totally irrelevent point on the series' quality which justifies RE2 and RE3's lower scores. The Famicom mini (which weren't rated as high as their originals) and the other ports prove that time does result in lower scores, and I believe RE4 is no exception. I also am of the opinion that the FM series should get low scores.
My only miswording (I'm at school in a boring class trying to be discreet) was saying "By your standard" instead of "By this standard", and I'm going to edit my post accordingly.
A Japanese version of a game is different in principle for tons of reasons. A port was still available to the region as a whole, but I see what you're saying and it can be solved with varable scoring. As a corollary, by that, RE2 and RE3 might as well be rated somewhere close to their PSone counterparts for the audience Capcom made them for in the first place. (Mikami admitted the truth behind them)
But I agree with the rest of your post.
