Support NeoGAF

[diffusionx]

Doesn't even look like that big of a difference anymore.

The level of detail, complexity of environment/characters, texture maps, etc., in Shenmue is so far beyond the prior generation. Shenmue 2 was even better and actually when I played the remaster I was pretty impressed by it, 20 years on. It would have been interesting if the DC stuck around longer, because had it, people would have tried to make "real" open world games like GTA3 on it. I don't know how they would have turned out but my guess is a lot better than Driver 2 on PSX.

Note it also got respectable versions of PC titles like Half-Life/UT/Quake3 whereas the N64/PSX versions of them were heavily compromised/changed/cut-up, to the point where the N64 versions are considered a bonus throw-in on modern remasters.

 

[BlackTron]

GTA 3 wasn't designed to run at 60fps back in 2001.
As the physics, animations are tied to the frame rate

Is this supposed to be some sort of excuse?

 

[BlackTron]

The level of detail, complexity of environment/characters, texture maps, etc., in Shenmue is so far beyond the prior generation. Shenmue 2 was even better and actually when I played the remaster I was pretty impressed by it, 20 years on. It would have been interesting if the DC stuck around longer, because had it, people would have tried to make "real" open world games like GTA3 on it. I don't know how they would have turned out but my guess is a lot better than Driver 2 on PSX.

Note it also got respectable versions of PC titles like Half-Life/UT/Quake3 whereas the N64/PSX versions of them were heavily compromised/changed/cut-up, to the point where the N64 versions are considered a bonus throw-in on modern remasters.

Honestly? To be fair, in the comparison shots given, it doesn't look like that big of a difference. Those screens are a terrible representation of what the systems could actually do. Unflattering screen of Shenmue, HUGELY upressed N64 and PSX shots from an emulator.

 

[cireza]

We should leave behind the myth about the Dreamcast having better image quality over the PS2 because it had AA 2hile the PS2 didn't.
The real reason is that the Dreamcast renders 99% of its tames internally at 640x480 while most PS2 games render internally waaasy below that figure, even games marketed as 1080i on PS2 actually rendered at 512x 224....

Same goes for the game cube it rarely rendered at 640x480, the only console consistently rendering at standards resolutions was the original Xbox reason why the DC and Xbox has the best image quality that gen

Yes, and this is the exact same reason why we still get poor image quality nowadays. Always rendering stuff from lower resolutions, and then stretching via the hardware to something bigger, and on top of this maybe the TV is also stretching as well, because LCD certainly cannot render the rectangles pixels a CRT can. And you end up with that unsatisfactory, blurry picture, for which more blur is applied on top anytime something moves (thanks LCDs again).

When your game is native res though, it will definitely look very clean and pretty on LCD (but you will keep the movement blur though).

If we continue down this dumb road, we will eventually reach the point where we will be spending more ressources at uprezing a shitty picture than actually outputting a native res one.

My preference goes largely towards simpler visuals but done at native res and 60fps, which was exactly what arcade games were about to begin with.

 

[polybius80]

Maybe you personally didn't know about Soul Calibur until later, but it was painfully obvious to anyone who saw it and the first level of Sonic Adventure, one month after the system came out, that this was not a "N64 Pro". It was the biggest generational leap we ever had in 3D.

If you personally paid attention to a bunch of crappy ports that doesn't make it a PSX/N64 Pro either. The only port I had back then was Rayman 2 which was actually pretty great and didn't seem like some gimped PSX game.

Even playing random "lesser" games on demo disks it was blatantly obvious this system left PS/64 in the dust regardless to what extent it was being used. Without knowing anything about game development you could tell it was struggling less to perform and everything was sharper and cleaner even if reduced to the bare minimum.

At least we agree that Phantasy Star Online was megaton but if that's where you jumped in, seems like you just weren't aware of what the system was pulling. Which you pretty much just admitted if you didn't even know Soul Calibur was a thing. This one game represents the biggest visual upgrade in 3D history. You don't do that with a "pro" system. Sorry you didn't notice but just because you glossed over it, you don't get to rewrite history without any punctuation.

the point is that there are people with different opinions just because the OP asked a question doesn't mean its "impossible to believe such thing" or a reason to "feel it as an offense" I never considered the DC as a "pro system" as I understand lot of its games weren't for me but I can understand people that think in such way given how the system was presented and how your average game was a port from PSX1/N64

This one game represents the biggest visual upgrade in 3D history.

as I said everybody can have an opinion

The system was only on the market for about 15 months, but already by the 2nd year you were starting to see games like Shenmue that really could not be done on prior consoles (and in that instance, they tried). There were others like JGR and PSO. If the Dreamcast was successful, the games would have continued to evolve. Look at the PS2, the first year was a lot of rough games and DC ports (bad ports at that) but by the end of 2001 it was a totally new ballgame. The Dreamcast was not going to be permanently shackled to the prior gen style of game forever the way the PS4 Pro was.

exactly by the second year that is my point, when N64 and PSX were released you had mario64 and crash bandicoot where your previous 3d experience in consoles was starfox for the snes, dirt tracks fx and some other snes SFX games or sega32x games, it took too long for the average game to be perceived as not possible in past systems

Not sure if totally serious, but ok.

it was supposed to be a joke as you said the thread was like an offense in the way it was presented

Not sure N64 or PS1 could have done Jet Radio or Crazy Taxi any justice.

I dont think it would have been a good experience either, not sure how doable is a crazy taxi game on those systems, as impressive as the driver games were I am not sure how quickly can be streamed the chunks of the map, in the case of jet grind radio the only vaguely similar game I can think of was the tony hawks games but who knows maybe the simpler colors and avoiding the extra polygons of the cell shading can in theory work a limited but decent port on n64 and ps1, the ps1 for example had a reduced port of MDK compared to PC and was a decent game still as were the gauntlet ports which DC had an excellent port from arcade far superior yet you could play gauntlet in the other systems

 

[Thaedolus]

Not when the comparison shots are emulators with upscaling applied, no.

And these are just shots of Ryo’s back. Like zero 5th gen games have individual fingers in their models for example. Show some screens from Shenmue’s cutscenes versus actual native shots from that gen and it’s hilarious the difference. I got a launch Dreamcast and it literally blew everyone away at the time. My friend’s mom came over when we were playing NFL2K and she thought it was a real football game on TV at first.

Edit:

It blew its early contemporaries away. First time I can ever remember one of my parents mistaking a video game for a TV broadcast (NFL 2K)

Hah! Not the only one to get that reaction

 

[polybius80]

And these are just shots of Ryo’s back. Like zero 5th gen games have individual fingers in their models for example. Show some screens from Shenmue’s cutscenes versus actual native shots from that gen and it’s hilarious the difference. I got a launch Dreamcast and it literally blew everyone away at the time. My friend’s mom came over when we were playing NFL2K and she thought it was a real football game on TV at first.

your average DC game doesnt look like shenmue or have individual fingers and dont move their mouths in fact most of them dont even animate the texture of their lips, the system is perfectly capable but most games didnt use that and were made with different scopes and techniques for a long time, the problem of the DC is one of perception not of the system capabilities

 

[Badlucktroll]

fun fact

Sega wanted Xbox to play Dreamcast games

Sega had hoped that the original Xbox would play Dreamcast titles, according to new reports.

www.digitalspy.com

 

[Thaedolus]

your average DC game doesnt look like shenmue or have individual fingers and dont move their mouths in fact most of them dont even animate the texture of their lips, the system is perfectly capable but most games didnt use that and were made with different scopes and techniques for a long time, the problem of the DC is one of perception not of the system capabilities

Sure but the average PSX game didn’t look like MGS either. Put the pinnacle of that gen up against the best Dreamcast games and it’s a generational leap, not even a question about that. Someone else said the N64 was probably the ”Pro” console of that gen and I could probably agree with that.

Dreamcast was definitely the weakest of the rest of the next gen consoles overall, sure, but it definitely ushered in the next gen of 3D that wasn’t full of muddy/wobbly textures and super low poly models without proper AA.

 

[polybius80]

Sure but the average PSX game didn’t look like MGS either. Put the pinnacle of that gen up against the best Dreamcast games and it’s a generational leap, not even a question about that. Someone else said the N64 was probably the ”Pro” console of that gen and I could probably agree with that.

Dreamcast was definitely the weakest of the rest of the next gen consoles overall, sure, but it definitely ushered in the next gen of 3D that wasn’t full of muddy/wobbly textures and super low poly models without proper AA.

you have to be more specific in your comparisons, in which way other games doesnt look like metal gear? 3d models? scenery?, presentation? you mentioned the fingers, are you suggesting the average game have worst hands? I can point to a lot of games with better face details and textures and other games with totally different 3d model technology in the same system, its is difficult to put the pinnacle of a system given the differences in genres, a game like soul reaver have a lot of technical advances over metal gear

 

[Soodanim]

your average DC game doesnt look like shenmue or have individual fingers and dont move their mouths in fact most of them dont even animate the texture of their lips, the system is perfectly capable but most games didnt use that and were made with different scopes and techniques for a long time, the problem of the DC is one of perception not of the system capabilities

The unfortunate thing about a console that doesn't get a full generation is that you never get to see what developers can squeeze out of it by the end. Dreamcast got a measly three years, whereas devs were improving with PS2 for over double that.

 

[polybius80]

The fact that the console had lazy ports doesn't negate how forward thinking and advanced it was compared to anything that happened before it, and obviously PS1/N64 ports are not the games to look at to witness that gigantic jump for 3D games.

but PS1/N64 ports were your average game for the system that is the problem, advanced games are good to understand what a system is capable of but your average game defines how the system capabilities are perceived to the public, as good as shenmue, phatasy star online, and soul calibur are people will buy all sort of games not only the good looking ones

 

[cireza]

but PS1/N64 ports were your average game for the system that is the problem, advanced games are good to understand what a system is capable of but your average game defines how the system capabilities are perceived to the public, as good as shenmue, phatasy star online, and soul calibur are people will buy all sort of games not only the good looking ones

Well that's great because PSO, Soul Calibur and Shenmue definitely made a lot of sales on the console. The public understood how big of a gap it was, that's for sure.

Also third parties work on their projects and put them on whatever hardware is available at the time. That's how they work. The lowest common hardware will always be there impacting their output in a way. Core Designs were still working on Tomb Raider with its old, updated engine. Should they skip Dreamcast because they don't have something as pretty as Code Veronica ? That would be dumb, as they are third parties and want to release on all platforms possible. So we get a Tomb Raider game that is also released on PS1. Doesn't make the Dreamcast a PS1Pro...

Also people thinking that we have seen all of what the Dreamcast could offer are delusional. The console had less than 4 years of very active development time. Of course it would have been pushed further.

 

[diffusionx]

exactly by the second year that is my point, when N64 and PSX were released you had mario64 and crash bandicoot where your previous 3d experience in consoles was starfox for the snes, dirt tracks fx and some other snes SFX games or sega32x games, it took too long for the average game to be perceived as not possible in past systems

The point is that this stuff takes time, the games just don't fall out of the box, the Dreamcast was clearly more capable of more than your standard N64/PSX fare but devs were used to making games like that, until they weren't. It is obvious that they were starting to figure it out but by then the system was already dead and people moved on to PS2.

it's totally impossible to know what a 2002 Dreamcast game would have looked like, but it likely would have been a lot closer to a 2002 PS2 title than a 1999 Dreamcast game.

 

[polybius80]

The unfortunate thing about a console that doesn't get a full generation is that you never get to see what developers can squeeze out of it by the end. Dreamcast got a measly three years, whereas devs were improving with PS2 for over double that.

true but comparisons are tricky a system usage improves over time but there has to be something in the hardware that allows big jumps otherwise your gains can be marginal or be focuses more in artistic designs and LOD

PS2 improved because the fast vram and redrawing capability to te point of making effects considered impossible in very complex games but it also affected the first and the average games because of how radical and difficult to work for example texture quality only improved when devs understood that they had to upgrade the texture buffer many times during frame and to desing strategies to transfer the textures, totally opposite to DC where you had more space but slower access time for your texture buffer as a result many devs complained the texture space was too small and desgined games without exploiting the features, there are devs that can achieve incredible feats using some very specific parts of a system but not your average dev, DC has also tricks but average speaking the system was very easy to use with not as much to improve, I consider the way of making games thinking in PSX and N64 at the time for the result of the average DC game more than difficult to understand features of the system even if in principle are very similar, think in your director and 3d artists were planning making models and scenes in certain way thinking in n64/psx capabilities when they could disregard those systems and design based on DC capabilities instead they made a n64/psx game with extra features on DC, in one case you have to invest time and research to correctly use a feature and in the other case you know about the feature can exploit it but decide not to use that for time and resource constraints

 

[SmokedMeat]

Nah, they just moved on from Saturn very quickly.

 

[polybius80]

Well that's great because PSO, Soul Calibur and Shenmue definitely made a lot of sales on the console. The public understood how big of a gap it was, that's for sure.

Also third parties work on their projects and put them on whatever hardware is available at the time. That's how they work. The lowest common hardware will always be there impacting their output in a way. Core Designs were still working on Tomb Raider with its old, updated engine. Should they skip Dreamcast because they don't have something as pretty as Code Veronica ? That would be dumb, as they are third parties and want to release on all platforms possible. So we get a Tomb Raider game that is also released on PS1. Doesn't make the Dreamcast a PS1Pro...

if you receive the same game as PS1 but better looking then the console its acting exaclty like a PS1 Pro

make most of your initial catalog ports and you get the idea

I am not saying DC was PS1 Pro only that its simple to understand why can be considered like that, its a problem of perception not of system capabilities

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 

[Sub_Level]

Fixed. Xbox always felt like a Dreamcast 1.5 in spirit and in content.

Yep. PS2 and Dreamcast could run Half-Life. Xbox could run Half-Life 2.

 

[RAIDEN1]

Fun fact of the day: Virtua Fighter 3 has never been re-released on ANY platform....

 

[Thaedolus]

if you receive the same game as PS1 but better looking then the console its acting exaclty like a PS1 Pro

Since RDR just got out on PS4 and PS5 through BC I guess those are just PS3 Pros then

 

[Brigandier]

I will always remember the fanboys in school saying the DC wasn't that much better than PS1, Then I got one for Xmas 99 with Soul Calibur, Sonic and Sega Rally 2 and was blown away it was a fucking huge jump in visual fidelity.

Dead or Alive 2, Crazy Taxi and Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia and then the final swansong for the DC in UK Shenmue 2 which was jaw dropping.

First console with online play and even had a broadband adapter...

It was definitely a gen 6 console.

Only thing that let the DC down was that god awful controller with a D-Pad that could cut glass and no second analogue???? Really poor decision and the GD ROM was so noisy.

I love the Dreamcast and still play mine frequently, mine is modded to play 1440p natively and it makes games really pop I highly recommend the DCdigital mod to any DC fan.

 

[polybius80]

Since RDR just got out on PS4 and PS5 through BC I guess those are just PS3 Pros then

at least for RDR case it is acting like one, now to declare the whole system I think it has to be something more common, also dont you think that releasing a port many years after the ps3 version defeats the purpose of a ps3 pro?

isn't one of the complains people have about this gen is that it make a lot of ports from past gens?

 

[Destruction-1002]

Clearly the PS2 was so limited for its time

 

[Thaedolus]

at least for RDR case it is acting like one, now to declare the whole system I think it has to be something more common,

Exactly why I don’t think you can call the DC a pro gen 5 console.

 

[polybius80]

Exactly why I don’t think you can call the DC a pro gen 5 console.

as I said the problem is in how common it is, also I mentioned about the time, a game from 2010 being ported to a later console in 2023 is not the same than for example to have tomb raider 4 on DC and PSX, 13 years of diference in the port compared to 3-4 months changes completely, but you are free to think whatever you want

 

[Fafalada]

Others have said it already - but XBox was the closest to 'Pro' category console - especially in market positioning (cross-platform games that often ran at higher framerates and/or higher resolution).
Or maybe to put it in contemporary way - XB was Series X, while GameCube was Series S.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

It's 6th gen IMO.

They simply released their console earlier then others and it was less powerful as a result sort of like how the Wii U is part of the PS4/XBO generation and just released earlier.

 

[BlackTron]

but PS1/N64 ports were your average game for the system that is the problem, advanced games are good to understand what a system is capable of but your average game defines how the system capabilities are perceived to the public, as good as shenmue, phatasy star online, and soul calibur are people will buy all sort of games not only the good looking ones

This is just a silly hot take, anyone with a perception about a game system knows different titles have different graphics. Where your argument really falls apart though, is that those ports really underscored how much better DC was due to the 1:1 matchup. DC versions of games were usually better beyond the extra margin a Pro system will get you today. You say the PS4 Pro will give me 2x the resolution? Dreamcast gave you an entirely reworked game. You're saying no one noticed the difference because it was too samey? People paid more attention to the exclusives, and when we did play ports, it drew even MORE attention to the massive gulf.

This is Rayman 2 PSX, N64 and DC...if if the DC only had ports everyone would still have known it was next-gen.

 

[Soodanim]

true but comparisons are tricky a system usage improves over time but there has to be something in the hardware that allows big jumps otherwise your gains can be marginal or be focuses more in artistic designs and LOD

PS2 improved because the fast vram and redrawing capability to te point of making effects considered impossible in very complex games but it also affected the first and the average games because of how radical and difficult to work for example texture quality only improved when devs understood that they had to upgrade the texture buffer many times during frame and to desing strategies to transfer the textures, totally opposite to DC where you had more space but slower access time for your texture buffer as a result many devs complained the texture space was too small and desgined games without exploiting the features, there are devs that can achieve incredible feats using some very specific parts of a system but not your average dev, DC has also tricks but average speaking the system was very easy to use with not as much to improve, I consider the way of making games thinking in PSX and N64 at the time for the result of the average DC game more than difficult to understand features of the system even if in principle are very similar, think in your director and 3d artists were planning making models and scenes in certain way thinking in n64/psx capabilities when they could disregard those systems and design based on DC capabilities instead they made a n64/psx game with extra features on DC, in one case you have to invest time and research to correctly use a feature and in the other case you know about the feature can exploit it but decide not to use that for time and resource constraints

Can you record a clip of you speaking that with the same number of full stops as the post has please? I want to see if you can do it in one breath without dying

 

[AGRacing]

I think it would be easier to think of Dreamcast as the generational leap that it truly was if it wasn't for the PS2 a year later.

Dreamcast was a generational leap.
PS2 was a generational quantum leap.

When you look at Gran Turismo 1 and 2 it isn't even believable that GT3 was only 1 console generation later. It is so far beyond it graphically that it really is absurd.
It was a crazy time and I'm often saddened the kids don't get to experience it in the way those of us who were there got to see it.

 

[polybius80]

This is just a silly hot take, anyone with a perception about a game system knows different titles have different graphics. Where your argument really falls apart though, is that those ports really underscored how much better DC was due to the 1:1 matchup. DC versions of games were usually better beyond the extra margin a Pro system will get you today. You say the PS4 Pro will give me 2x the resolution? Dreamcast gave you an entirely reworked game. You're saying no one noticed the difference because it was too samey? People paid more attention to the exclusives, and when we did play ports, it drew even MORE attention to the massive gulf.

This is Rayman 2 PSX, N64 and DC...if if the DC only had ports everyone would still have known it was next-gen.

I never said DC wasnt a next gen system I dont know were you get that and actually I was talking about DC games I said "PS1/N64 ports" not "PS1/N64 versions", in fact Ill add to your comparison one of my favorite games at the time, gauntlet, the DC version was soo much better in more ways than just graphics with 4 players fully with the sound like the arcade way better than the PSX and N64 versions

the point its simple if I can play the "same game" in the older system and this repeats a lot then the newer system starts looking like a pro version of the console you already have no matter if graphics are better(like a pro version) even worst It can get to the point were the system can be considered redundant by some people, I am not saying that DC doesn't have advancements, of course at the time was a new system way more powerful and the start of a new generation but it require its own games to really shine there were soo many ports and lot of them too crappy that gave a bad impression IMO, of course DC have its great exclusive games but they are too few and for the average user to properly see, people get so triggered this is mere an academic exercise to better understand its death

People paid more attention to the exclusives, and when we did play ports, it drew even MORE attention to the massive gulf.

you and me could play different ports back then but not the average user and the comparisons weren't nearly as good as today, we bought magazines back then where they mentioned differences sometimes if the "same game" is already in your system you can get a hard time making the point of buying a new system specially if you depended on your parents back then

 

[polybius80]

Can you record a clip of you speaking that with the same number of full stops as the post has please? I want to see if you can do it in one breath without dying

dont try that!, you will hurt yourself

 

[Seider]

A lot of games released first on Dreamcast were lated ported to Playstation 2 and Gamecube, so no, its not a 5th gen console. Its a 6th gen one.

 

[Hudo]

Dreamcast has the best version of Rayman 2. That's my metric.

 

[cireza]

If you receive the same game as PS1 but better looking then the console its acting exaclty like a PS1 Pro

This is the dumbest logic I have seen I quite some time. The SNES was a NES Pro since it had Mario All Stars. The PS1 is a SNES Pro since it had Mortal Kombat 3.

If we ignore exclusive games and proper ports, it works all the time ! Genius !

 

[the_master]

Ah it was the default, PS2 was the Pro

PS2 was no pro, it was exactly where the Dreamcast was.
Xbox was the one that we could consider Pro, even a Pro+ as it could do some relevant graphical effects than Dreamcast and PS2 could not (like bump mapping).

 

[SpiceRacz]

This is just a silly hot take, anyone with a perception about a game system knows different titles have different graphics. Where your argument really falls apart though, is that those ports really underscored how much better DC was due to the 1:1 matchup. DC versions of games were usually better beyond the extra margin a Pro system will get you today. You say the PS4 Pro will give me 2x the resolution? Dreamcast gave you an entirely reworked game. You're saying no one noticed the difference because it was too samey? People paid more attention to the exclusives, and when we did play ports, it drew even MORE attention to the massive gulf.

This is Rayman 2 PSX, N64 and DC...if if the DC only had ports everyone would still have known it was next-gen.

Also worth mentioning how impressive Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 on Dreamcast was. Especially in comparison to the PS1 & N64 versions.

 

[BlackTron]

you and me could play different ports back then but not the average user and the comparisons weren't nearly as good as today, we bought magazines back then where they mentioned differences sometimes if the "same game" is already in your system you can get a hard time making the point of buying a new system specially if you depended on your parents back then

I think you just didn't notice Soul Calibur and are conflating yourself with the "average user". Dreamcast actually did very well in North America in the beginning, lots of people who didn't think it was a "pro console". You are describing someone who wants a Game Gear but their mom only got them a Game Boy so they deal with it. Yeah that may be a thing, but it's a different thing than perceiving DC as a Pro console, which didn't happen. In fact within 5 months of it's NA launch, DC had 20% of the market and sold 13 million games, mostly eating into N64's market share. That's either a lot of people who wanted a newer better system or a "N64 Pro".

Dreamcast's success can probably be attributed to the genuine, eye-popping next-gen nature of its early games, which I personally witnessed and experienced back then when people saw it at Funcoland, or being played at my house. And not for because anyone wanted to spend extra money on N64 Pro to play the same games at higher settings or anything like that. And yeah, the 'cast WAS very successful in NA before PS2 hype slowed things down, but PS2 is a very different problem than "people perceived it as a pro console"

 

[U n i o n 0015]

What was awesome about DC was that the image quality was fantastic. It was the first console where you gasped at how clean and clear the image was. I remember playing Skies of Arcadia at launch with the VGA adapter connected to my Sony Trinitron monitor...it was the tits.

DC image quality was even better than the PS2, whose games often had a soft and/or aliased image, especially in the first few years. Dreamcast.

 

[cireza]

VGA adapter connected to my Sony Trinitron monitor

Great choice. You can still get a very decent picture on modern TVs thanks to that VGA support. There are very competent VGA to HDMI converters.

 

[polybius80]

This is the dumbest logic I have seen I quite some time. The SNES was a NES Pro since it had Mario All Stars. The PS1 is a SNES Pro since it had Mortal Kombat 3.

If we ignore exclusive games and proper ports, it works all the time ! Genius !

snes catalog that aparently you know little about received ports from past generation as any console but the difference is the numbers, it mostly had its games that werent possible in the nes, mario all stars is a collection of games the ninja gaiden collection o r the mega man collection in genesis not a contemporary port, the DC on the other hand had way more ports it is ok as it competed with those systems but what lacked was more only DC games, the difference is in the numbers that's it, you disagree? fine you want to discuss? that is perfect, but try to use a good example as argument for example are nes games that received a snes port and were contemporary you can try that

 

[Physiognomonics]

It was fully next-gen when it released, believe me. Besides many games looked better than the first games on PS2, others identical. Sure later some PS2 games looked superior in many areas. But no PS2 games features textures as good as in Shenmue 1 & 2. Textures is an area which is better on Dreamcast. Dreamcast is actually a very balanced machine and easier to develop than PS2.

We could see this as the difference between Pro and X1X.

 

[Trunx81]

I still remember the first screenshots from Virtua Fighter for Dreamcast in a german gaming magazine. It was so much ahead of PS1 and N64 in terms of clarity and resolution, it looked like pre-rendered. Really gave you this "next gen" feeling that I´m missing this gen.

 

[Destruction-1002]

It was fully next-gen when it released, believe me. Besides many games looked better than the first games on PS2, others identical. Sure later some PS2 games looked superior in many areas. But no PS2 games features textures as good as in Shenmue 1 & 2. Textures is an area which is better on Dreamcast. Dreamcast is actually a very balanced machine and easier to develop than PS2.

We could see this as the difference between Pro and X1X.

The PS2 didn't have texture compresssion of 5:1 ratio and had half of the VRAM of Dreamcast

I heard someone say how limited PS2 was because devs couldn't port Shenmue from 1999 to PS2

 

[lachesis]

It started the next gen for sure.
Dreamcast got pulled off way before its maturity. Of course there are some games like Shenmue that pushes the hardware, but even Shenmue, I am not certain it was the best the DC could do.

Many PS2 games looked pretty underwhelming (asides polygon counts), but later games looked so much different because of many new techniques and tricks implemented.
Back then, a lot of things in 3d gfx were still in motion, and being developed. Lighting techniques, texture usages, or even the idea of constant data streaming etc.
(Not sure if DC was capable of streaming data constantly, however.)

Also just sheer jump from 360x240-ish gfx to 640x480p (mostly) was basically 4x jump in raw gfx performance.

 

[Thaedolus]

snes catalog that aparently you know little about received ports from past generation as any console but the difference is the numbers, it mostly had its games that werent possible in the nes, mario all stars is a collection of games the ninja gaiden collection o r the mega man collection in genesis not a contemporary port, the DC on the other hand had way more ports it is ok as it competed with those systems but what lacked was more only DC games, the difference is in the numbers that's it, you disagree? fine

So are you saying the ratio of software being ports of last gen consoles vs new games on it makes it a pro last gen console? That makes zero sense. It has numerous games that simply couldn’t be down rezzed or FPS capped to run on old consoles, which is essentially what the PS4 Pro and One X were capable of. You’re defining a pro console in a really weird way.

Again, look at Shenmue Saturn prototype vs the final Dreamcast release. They didn’t just up the resolution and add anti aliasing. It’s a full generational leap. Yes, there were ports, but that doesn’t make it a “pro” console. It belongs in the same league as PS2/GC/XBox.

 

[polybius80]

I think you just didn't notice Soul Calibur and are conflating yourself with the "average user". Dreamcast actually did very well in North America in the beginning, lots of people who didn't think it was a "pro console". You are describing someone who wants a Game Gear but their mom only got them a Game Boy so they deal with it. Yeah that may be a thing, but it's a different thing than perceiving DC as a Pro console, which didn't happen. In fact within 5 months of it's NA launch, DC had 20% of the market and sold 13 million games, mostly eating into N64's market share. That's either a lot of people who wanted a newer better system or a "N64 Pro".

Dreamcast's success can probably be attributed to the genuine, eye-popping next-gen nature of its early games, which I personally witnessed and experienced back then when people saw it at Funcoland, or being played at my house. And not for because anyone wanted to spend extra money on N64 Pro to play the same games at higher settings or anything like that. And yeah, the 'cast WAS very successful in NA before PS2 hype slowed things down, but PS2 is a very different problem than "people perceived it as a pro console"

you bring good points, the sales of 5 months and market share is a good argument, maybe I am underestimating the ps2 hype, there are many factors for the DC another is the EA games at the time I remember the 2k sport games did relatively well I still think the rely on ports was too excessive but of course there is not a single cause

I try to put myself in the place of the average user, just as you do when mention people playing in places you visited or in your house, if I put the experience in my house as the "average user" then the sole purpose of DC was to play marvel vs capcom 2, at the end of the day even a good and famous game doesn't sell as much a there are consoles

 

[polybius80]

So are you saying the ratio of software being ports of last gen consoles vs new games on it makes it a pro last gen console?

no, but I am saying it can be perceived like that for lot of people, I already explained it wasn't my case

That makes zero sense.

try waiting for the answer to the question

It has numerous games that simply couldn’t be down rezzed or FPS capped to run on old consoles, which is essentially what the PS4 Pro and One X were capable of.

yes it has numerous games that cannot be rezzed down, but a huge amount of them can and were shared with the older systems, and I am talking about the perception it gave to certain customers, how significative are that amount of customers its debatable, also we can count those games now that the generation ended 20 years ago at the time you only had what was a available at the moment, as good as shenmue was it wasnt available day 1, you can count it by months, at first month what was available? then the second month and so on, that may influence if you buy or not

You’re defining a pro console in a really weird way.

Again, look at Shenmue Saturn prototype vs the final Dreamcast release. They didn’t just up the resolution and add anti aliasing. It’s a full generational leap. Yes, there were ports, but that doesn’t make it a “pro” console. It belongs in the same league as PS2/GC/XBox.

shenmue is not a game released in saturn, psx or n64, but sarge army, gauntlet and a pletora of games are and they also sell units

 

[cireza]

snes catalog that aparently you know little about received ports from past generation as any console but the difference is the numbers, it mostly had its games that werent possible in the nes, mario all stars is a collection of games the ninja gaiden collection o r the mega man collection in genesis not a contemporary port, the DC on the other hand had way more ports it is ok as it competed with those systems but what lacked was more only DC games, the difference is in the numbers that's it, you disagree? fine

Of course I disagree, as pretty much everyone in this thread. And my favorite SNES game is Shiren the Wanderer. Certainly the most well known game out there. Something that definitely matches with your stupid assumption that I don't know the SNES well.

I try to put myself in the place of the average user

You mean the guy who bought a Dreamcast with Sonic Adventure, Crazy Taxi, Soul Calibur, MSR, PSO, a 2K Sports game or Shenmue ? None of these games are PS1 games though. Damn !

 

[polybius80]

Of course I disagree, as pretty much everyone in this thread. And my favorite SNES game is Shiren the Wanderer. Most certainly the most well known game out there. Something that definitely matches with your stupid assumption that I don't know the SNES well.

people can only assume based on what you show, you bring a collection of non contemporary games as argument, is that some display of big knowledge of snes catalog? quite the opposite