Support NeoGAF

[VeganElduderino]

The Sega arcade ports are why I bought one. I didn't care about which console was more powerful. I wanted those 60 FPS Sega arcade games at home and Dreamcast was powerful enough for that.

i dint even know or care what was 30 fps or 60 , what i saw looked fucking awsome! thats why i wanted a dreamcast , just Sonic Adventure made me horny !

 

[Henry Panic]

No, it's only powerful in relation to the other consoles, which would be PS1 and N64 below it, which are both compromised machines both companies cut corners on which is why both lack features of the consoles before them they should have. It's also why you can't really say the N64 is stronger than the PS1 with 3 years older technology.

So when the Dreamcast came out, it was underpowered to where computers were heading, and where the arcade was heading.

Sega was hurt for cash. They also made dumb expensive decisions in the arcade, so instead of future proofing what would become the Dreamcast, they decided to aim for an affordable goal for power by making a more affordable arcade chipset than the Model 3, but slightly stronger.

By doing this, they came up with the Naomi arcade hardware, and the Dreamcast console based on the same chipset. Sega took the insane bet given it was the 1990s, that the glowing reception the model 3 received for it's technological capabilities, could be extended with the slightly more powerful, but massively more affordable Naomi based technology. In the decade were tech was jumping 50 feet ahead per week.

This ended up becoming a problem for the Dreamcast at it's 1998 Japanese launch, and buy the time it got games going and launched everywhere else, including the U.S. in 1999, the Dreamcast was doomed to fall behind.

The Dreamcast needed to have low-end PC Omikron graphics from launch and get better from there. Instead, low setting Omikron wasn't something the system could handle well and games approaching that technical achievement were late in the systems life.

For players visually, it was powerful at launch, but from a tech perspective it wasn't practical, too many compromises made, and one could argue that same problem applies to almost every 3D capable console from the 90s. What excuse do 3DO, Saturn, and PS2 have with their resources and chip access to have NO Z-buffering on their consoles but the freaking Jaguar has it lol? Why are N64 games rendering blurs and stretching polygons ruining image quality with mute colors and poor texture support? Then there's frame rate.

That whole decade was about manufacturers not actually taking advantage of new tech properly. Or spending a lot of money on a compromised version of better tech option. People say the 3D in that decade aged worst for a reason.

 

[Crayon]

The ps3 was alot more powerful but dreamcast games almost across the board had this great anti-aliasing that looked really clean. On ps2 you had ttt with really good aa but most games had none at all. So dc games looked really nice in their own way. It was fairly powerful. That was a time when gpu power was advancing very quickly, though. Gamecube 2 years later was way faster than dreamcast so by then it was maybe starting to look dated but the games at least looked good enough to still port to ps2 and sell.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

it instantly made the n64/ps1 look like hot smelly garbage.
a local game store had japanese import models hooked up to TVs before the US launch, and i remember just going "...wat" when i saw the graphics.
so clean. so fluid.
couldnt wait for the US launch and got an import model.

something about japanese blue stinger stuck with me. christmas, and zombies, and a language i dont understand... fun.

the disc-pop region bypass trick was fun too.
dont remember it exactly, but you tape something down so the console thinks the disc lid is always closed, you boot up a region-correct game with the lid up, then at some point flick the disc out and put in whatever game you want. always worked.

wild how the ps2 completely bitch slapped the dreamcast.
it's like the ps2 merely looked in the dreamcast's direction, and it died.

 

[consoul]

Compared to psx and n64 it was night and day (it could emulate psx via Bleem! In high res - play several late psx games on Dreamcast).

This right here. Bleemcast blew my goddamn mind at the time.

You could put original discs of top PS1 games (like Metal Gear Solid, Tekken 3 and Gran Turismo) into a Dreamcast and it wouldn't just run them, it ran them looking better than ever!

Running its current gen competitor's games better than the native platform was fucking black magic.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Yeah, @cireza didn't say the Dreamcast has the polycount, lights of the PS2 but remind us it has the better IQ, textures.

That my pob with the PS2. It has the best library ever, no pob with that, that's facts but...

The great generational leap was the Dreamcast and when big publishers really made the difference with the PS2 in 2001 (DMC, FFX,GT3)well...
The Xbox was here the same year with DOA3.

Very often when the PS2 does something better than the Dreamcast(geometry, lights), on the other hand it removes something (bad IQ, poor textures).

With the Xbox there was no debate, no compromise:

DOA3 had good geometry, good textures, good IQ.

Therefore i was blown away by the Dreamcast and then blown away by the xbox and DOA3 (with PS2 i was seduced by something, pissed off by something else).

What about the gamecube ?
I often laugh at Nintendo hardwares but i found this one pretty smart, efficient, cheap and more sexy than the PS2.

I mean, no horrible alliasing like the PS2 (just a little bit), good textures, great effects, F-Zero GX was impressive and the console $100 cheaper than the PS2 WTF !
This Nintendo console deserved more success than the blur 64

I had the same experience as you. DC stole PS2's thunder. The PS2, at launch, wasn't really impressive since DC had its second wave of games which included Soul Calibur (came out almost a full year after the JP DC launch). PS2 would eventually be the more powerful system, IQ aside it could do much more than DC. PS2 also ran Naomi (2) games, which was completely different architecture. And some of them were actually fine, like VF4 Evo.

It was Xbox, with DoA3, PGR at 60fps and also Halo with its broad landscapes that blew me away. Xbox was sort of a half a gen ahead. Splinter Cell was impossible to do on other systems, GC and especially PS2 ports were neutered to a level you never see in the same gen. Not even the PS3 ver. of Bayonetta which was still the same game albeit at lower framerate. Everyone knew PS3 could do better, see DMC4 which looked and ran awesome on PS3. PS2 and GC really had to cut corners when it came to Xbox games.

Gamecube had its moments too, like Rogue Leader and REmake. Those were impressive.

PS2 was impressive in the sense that it had hardware from early 2000 but could push games like MGS2, MGS3, Ace Combat Zero, God of War 2 and FFXII. The console always had a problem with IQ but you could see how impressive its games were. It was just always hidden behind a bit of sloppy AA and shimmering which was unfortunate. But certain remasters looked amazing while keeping the PS2 assets.

No, it's only powerful in relation to the other consoles, which would be PS1 and N64 below it, which are both compromised machines both companies cut corners on which is why both lack features of the consoles before them they should have. It's also why you can't really say the N64 is stronger than the PS1 with 3 years older technology.

So when the Dreamcast came out, it was underpowered to where computers were heading, and where the arcade was heading.

Sega was hurt for cash. They also made dumb expensive decisions in the arcade, so instead of future proofing what would become the Dreamcast, they decided to aim for an affordable goal for power by making a more affordable arcade chipset than the Model 3, but slightly stronger.

By doing this, they came up with the Naomi arcade hardware, and the Dreamcast console based on the same chipset. Sega took the insane bet given it was the 1990s, that the glowing reception the model 3 received for it's technological capabilities, could be extended with the slightly more powerful, but massively more affordable Naomi based technology. In the decade were tech was jumping 50 feet ahead per week.

This ended up becoming a problem for the Dreamcast at it's 1998 Japanese launch, and buy the time it got games going and launched everywhere else, including the U.S. in 1999, the Dreamcast was doomed to fall behind.

The Dreamcast needed to have low-end PC Omikron graphics from launch and get better from there. Instead, low setting Omikron wasn't something the system could handle well and games approaching that technical achievement were late in the systems life.

For players visually, it was powerful at launch, but from a tech perspective it wasn't practical, too many compromises made, and one could argue that same problem applies to almost every 3D capable console from the 90s. What excuse do 3DO, Saturn, and PS2 have with their resources and chip access to have NO Z-buffering on their consoles but the freaking Jaguar has it lol? Why are N64 games rendering blurs and stretching polygons ruining image quality with mute colors and poor texture support? Then there's frame rate.

That whole decade was about manufacturers not actually taking advantage of new tech properly. Or spending a lot of money on a compromised version of better tech option. People say the 3D in that decade aged worst for a reason.

Dreamcast came out at a weird time. 1998 was the 3d videocard war with improvements being made on monthly basis. I upgraded every few months lol. Also DVD was still too expensive in 1998-1999 but became sort of affordable in 2000. PS2 and later Xbox ran with it and weren't crazy expensive systems. Ofcourse, both Sony and Microsoft could also take bigger hits on hardware than Sega. But Sega was essentially without hardware at the time and saw all their marketshare being eaten. They had to release something to stay in the game. The reality is Sega was already dead when Saturn crashed and burned in the west. They lost all marketshare and goodwill the Genesis captured.

If DC ever had a chance, idk. Sega was small time compared to Sony and MS and even Nintendo. Their storage would be an issue. Nintendo deliberately chose for mini DVD and also suffered because of it but I think it still held more data than GDRom and had faster seek times. GC discs still held a bit more data than GD did. Upgrade was in talks, but we know how it goes with optional upgrades. It never fully catches on and never gets full support.

DC also had some baffling things going on. The controller was one. I think Sega cut a lot of corners with DC. To me it felt and sounded less reliable than Saturn (which never failed on me, personally). Nights pad also felt better than DC pad.

 

[22:22:22]

Not sure.

But going from N64 to Dead or Alive 2 and Shenmue was mindblowing. FWIW.

 

[tkscz]

No, it's only powerful in relation to the other consoles, which would be PS1 and N64 below it, which are both compromised machines both companies cut corners on which is why both lack features of the consoles before them they should have. It's also why you can't really say the N64 is stronger than the PS1 with 3 years older technology.

So when the Dreamcast came out, it was underpowered to where computers were heading, and where the arcade was heading.

Sega was hurt for cash. They also made dumb expensive decisions in the arcade, so instead of future proofing what would become the Dreamcast, they decided to aim for an affordable goal for power by making a more affordable arcade chipset than the Model 3, but slightly stronger.

By doing this, they came up with the Naomi arcade hardware, and the Dreamcast console based on the same chipset. Sega took the insane bet given it was the 1990s, that the glowing reception the model 3 received for it's technological capabilities, could be extended with the slightly more powerful, but massively more affordable Naomi based technology. In the decade were tech was jumping 50 feet ahead per week.

This ended up becoming a problem for the Dreamcast at it's 1998 Japanese launch, and buy the time it got games going and launched everywhere else, including the U.S. in 1999, the Dreamcast was doomed to fall behind.

The Dreamcast needed to have low-end PC Omikron graphics from launch and get better from there. Instead, low setting Omikron wasn't something the system could handle well and games approaching that technical achievement were late in the systems life.

For players visually, it was powerful at launch, but from a tech perspective it wasn't practical, too many compromises made, and one could argue that same problem applies to almost every 3D capable console from the 90s. What excuse do 3DO, Saturn, and PS2 have with their resources and chip access to have NO Z-buffering on their consoles but the freaking Jaguar has it lol? Why are N64 games rendering blurs and stretching polygons ruining image quality with mute colors and poor texture support? Then there's frame rate.

That whole decade was about manufacturers not actually taking advantage of new tech properly. Or spending a lot of money on a compromised version of better tech option. People say the 3D in that decade aged worst for a reason.

Ah but you missed that originally the Dreamcast was supposed to have it's graphic chipset done by Voodoo. However, a rep from Voodoo revealed that information before Sega could and Sega dropped them for it for Panasonic's PowerVR. If you look into the history of Sega, they are not nor have they ever really been good at business decisions.

 

[damiank]

Oh you have no idea, today we're discovering these "PARITY CLAUSES" but they definitely existed back in the PS2 days, Sony is a sneaky MoFo. When GTA III was in development, it was first announced that it will be running at a higher resolution on Xbox, but suddenly that was backtracked and the game released at 480p on Xbox, but the Xbox was perfectly capable of outputting the game as is at 720p without breaking a sweat.

Someone used a hex edit to force the output to 720p and here are the results. Smooth framerate, sharp 720p output with the added reflections:

Smooth? Where? It's basically slowmo on Xbox. You don't need any parity clauses to drop res to keep stable performance. It's something like common sense. Not to mention that GTA3 was first released on PS2, later on PC and lastly on Xbox in GTA Double Pack with also enchanced Vice City.

 

[The Stig]

I recently bought an NTSC DC and put together a collection (Im from the UK, my PAL DC is no bueno) and connected it to my monitor via VGA. its awesome.

Some of these games that really use the naomi board are amazing for the time.

Soul Calibur, Shenmue and F355, Daytona and other all just blew my mind with how sharp and fast everything was.

BTW im not in denial, I know it was a failure lol

 

[Fat Frog]

I had the same experience as you. DC stole PS2's thunder. The PS2, at launch, wasn't really impressive since DC had its second wave of games which included Soul Calibur (came out almost a full year after the JP DC launch). PS2 would eventually be the more powerful system, IQ aside it could do much more than DC. PS2 also ran Naomi (2) games, which was completely different architecture. And some of them were actually fine, like VF4 Evo.

It was Xbox, with DoA3, PGR at 60fps and also Halo with its broad landscapes that blew me away. Xbox was sort of a half a gen ahead. Splinter Cell was impossible to do on other systems, GC and especially PS2 ports were neutered to a level you never see in the same gen. Not even the PS3 ver. of Bayonetta which was still the same game albeit at lower framerate. Everyone knew PS3 could do better, see DMC4 which looked and ran awesome on PS3. PS2 and GC really had to cut corners when it came to Xbox games.

Gamecube had its moments too, like Rogue Leader and REmake. Those were impressive.

PS2 was impressive in the sense that it had hardware from early 2000 but could push games like MGS2, MGS3, Ace Combat Zero, God of War 2 and FFXII. The console always had a problem with IQ but you could see how impressive its games were. It was just always hidden behind a bit of sloppy AA and shimmering which was unfortunate. But certain remasters looked amazing while keeping the PS2 assets.



Dreamcast came out at a weird time. 1998 was the 3d videocard war with improvements being made on monthly basis. I upgraded every few months lol. Also DVD was still too expensive in 1998-1999 but became sort of affordable in 2000. PS2 and later Xbox ran with it and weren't crazy expensive systems. Ofcourse, both Sony and Microsoft could also take bigger hits on hardware than Sega. But Sega was essentially without hardware at the time and saw all their marketshare being eaten. They had to release something to stay in the game. The reality is Sega was already dead when Saturn crashed and burned in the west. They lost all marketshare and goodwill the Genesis captured.

If DC ever had a chance, idk. Sega was small time compared to Sony and MS and even Nintendo. Their storage would be an issue. Nintendo deliberately chose for mini DVD and also suffered because of it but I think it still held more data than GDRom and had faster seek times. GC discs still held a bit more data than GD did. Upgrade was in talks, but we know how it goes with optional upgrades. It never fully catches on and never gets full support.

DC also had some baffling things going on. The controller was one. I think Sega cut a lot of corners with DC. To me it felt and sounded less reliable than Saturn (which never failed on me, personally). Nights pad also felt better than DC pad.

Before to give you my honest and brutal answer about the PS2 harware, i'll explain to Sony boys why this playstation is my exception.

I was blown away by:
- Ridge Racer, Toh Shin Den on the PSX.
- VF5, Uncharted 2 on the PS3.
- The screen quality of the PSP
- The Order on the PS4
- The overall quality of the Vita

As you can see, i have nothing against playstation and i kinda like Cerny.

PS2's library is the goat BUT BUT BUT... PS2's hardware is a whole different business. Explanations soon

 

[JackMcGunns]

Smooth? Where? It's basically slowmo on Xbox. You don't need any parity clauses to drop res to keep stable performance. It's something like common sense. Not to mention that GTA3 was first released on PS2, later on PC and lastly on Xbox in GTA Double Pack with also enchanced Vice City.

Did you actually play GTA3 on PS2 or remember how atrocious it ran? smh You really think 19 fps should be acceptable with that atrocious draw distance, low resolution and jagginess? I think you missed the point entirely. Xbox is able to run the game at 1280 x 720 with smooth textures, much better draw distance, MSAA applied and with better framerate. There was no reason to drop the resolution or omit the option for those with HDTVs, there were deals behind closed doors to even allow Xbox to get GTA which was money hatted for about 6 months.

 

[BabyYoda]

I would say the Dreamcast was a much bigger step up in power from the gen before it than the current gen.

 

[JackMcGunns]

I would say the Dreamcast was a much bigger step up in power from the gen before it than the current gen.

^^^ THIS

When I played Soul Calibur for the first time on my Sony 35" CRT of the day, I was in awe! Still used to the pixelated PSX 3D or the muddy, low poly games of N64, this was such an upgrade! I wasn't awed this much since playing Toshinden on PlayStation for the first time or Mario 64. And what cements this sentiment is that when PS2 launched, games actually looked worse! not better than DC because of the jaggie mess with launch titles. Tekken Tag Tournament? ugh, and Dead or Alive Hard Core which was supposed to be an upgrade over the Dreamcast version looked worse. Why is this even a question? lol

 

[Pagusas]

It was a looker and impressive at its launch, coming from PSone/N64 it was the first system to really bring us into the modern era. Shenmue, Sonic Adventures, Soul Calibur, NFL 2k, Crazy Taxi, all are games that really helped set the foundations of the modern games we play (in terms of visuals I mean, boot any of those games up and while you'll see their age, you'll also see all the funamental graphic techniques on display that are still used in modern games, they were the 1.0's of todays games)

 

[FoxMcChief]

Yes. The Dreamcast is better than the current gen consoles where it matters. Massive dick size.

N64 and Dreamcast were my first consoles that were 100% mine and didn’t have to share. So I hold them up higher than most others do. Having both though, made me better/smarter than most others. It was a crazy time.

 

[BabyYoda]

^^^ THIS

When I played Soul Calibur for the first time on my Sony 35" CRT of the day, I was in awe! Still used to the pixelated PSX 3D or the muddy, low poly games of N64, this was such an upgrade! I wasn't awed this much since playing Toshinden on PlayStation for the first time or Mario 64. And what cements this sentiment is that when PS2 launched, games actually looked worse! not better than DC because of the jaggie mess with launch titles. Tekken Tag Tournament? ugh, and Dead or Alive Hard Core which was supposed to be an upgrade over the Dreamcast version looked worse. Why is this even a question? lol

Yep, Soulcalibur's graphics blew my mind!

 

[EverythingsOverrated]

A few weeks ago I hooked up my PS2 and Xbox to my old CRT next to the Dreamcast and played a handful of games on each.

I know it's been mentioned in the thread already, but the Dreamcasts image quality is pretty impressive considering it came out in 98. Even over RCA, games on DC had this pop about them. Get the VGA box hooked up to a decent monitor and it's even more noticeable.

 

[Henry Panic]

Ah but you missed that originally the Dreamcast was supposed to have it's graphic chipset done by Voodoo. However, a rep from Voodoo revealed that information before Sega could and Sega dropped them for it for Panasonic's PowerVR. If you look into the history of Sega, they are not nor have they ever really been good at business decisions.

I'm aware, but Sega was relying on Model 3 graphics having a longer impression than was realistic, a bet that they never made with their arcades before, it was completely out of character.

As a result, Naomi was barely more powerful.

I don't know who got drunk in the late '90s among top Sega leadership, but even with the Saturn failure they could have at least stayed in the race by making lower profits, even if it wasn't as much as the competition. They decided to run the race on credit.

 

[Fat Frog]

I had the same experience as you. DC stole PS2's thunder. The PS2, at launch, wasn't really impressive since DC had its second wave of games which included Soul Calibur (came out almost a full year after the JP DC launch). PS2 would eventually be the more powerful system, IQ aside it could do much more than DC. PS2 also ran Naomi (2) games, which was completely different architecture. And some of them were actually fine, like VF4 Evo.

It was Xbox, with DoA3, PGR at 60fps and also Halo with its broad landscapes that blew me away. Xbox was sort of a half a gen ahead. Splinter Cell was impossible to do on other systems, GC and especially PS2 ports were neutered to a level you never see in the same gen. Not even the PS3 ver. of Bayonetta which was still the same game albeit at lower framerate. Everyone knew PS3 could do better, see DMC4 which looked and ran awesome on PS3. PS2 and GC really had to cut corners when it came to Xbox games.

Gamecube had its moments too, like Rogue Leader and REmake. Those were impressive.

PS2 was impressive in the sense that it had hardware from early 2000 but could push games like MGS2, MGS3, Ace Combat Zero, God of War 2 and FFXII. The console always had a problem with IQ but you could see how impressive its games were. It was just always hidden behind a bit of sloppy AA and shimmering which was unfortunate. But certain remasters looked amazing while keeping the PS2 assets.



Dreamcast came out at a weird time. 1998 was the 3d videocard war with improvements being made on monthly basis. I upgraded every few months lol. Also DVD was still too expensive in 1998-1999 but became sort of affordable in 2000. PS2 and later Xbox ran with it and weren't crazy expensive systems. Ofcourse, both Sony and Microsoft could also take bigger hits on hardware than Sega. But Sega was essentially without hardware at the time and saw all their marketshare being eaten. They had to release something to stay in the game. The reality is Sega was already dead when Saturn crashed and burned in the west. They lost all marketshare and goodwill the Genesis captured.

If DC ever had a chance, idk. Sega was small time compared to Sony and MS and even Nintendo. Their storage would be an issue. Nintendo deliberately chose for mini DVD and also suffered because of it but I think it still held more data than GDRom and had faster seek times. GC discs still held a bit more data than GD did. Upgrade was in talks, but we know how it goes with optional upgrades. It never fully catches on and never gets full support.

DC also had some baffling things going on. The controller was one. I think Sega cut a lot of corners with DC. To me it felt and sounded less reliable than Saturn (which never failed on me, personally). Nights pad also felt better than DC pad.

I was impressed by the PS3 (Uncharted 2 is beautiful in every aspect)but definetely not by the PS2 and the games you mentioned:

- Yeah, the rain, the smooth framerate in MGS2 impressed me but i was disapointed the poor textures. Same for GOW.(and i don't get the appeal of MGS3, textures are more detailed than MGS2 but it's like all the same color...many reused textures ?)

- Final Fantasy X impressed me in 2001 but...like FF games on PSX, i was impressed by the cinematics, by the 2D pre rendered backgrounds (the 2 statues when Tidus is entering the stadium) but not especially by the cute colorful 3D corridors, i immediately noticed the textures were so so and i guessed Square fixed the camera so as we cannot zoom on them... During the battles Shiva was great, but it's like in engine cutscene.
Some people can tell me that 3D models during cutscenes are beautiful. They are... But did they notice Square made several 3D models: high poly for cutscenes and low poly for ingame... So...




Consoles of that generations WERE NOT ready for 100% 3D games: Trying to replicate,for instance, each element of a human characters with only 3D is pointless, especially with hairs. Most of time, it will be ugly, blocky. Same thing with many elements of 3D worlds like trees, grass, it's better and prettier to use 2D with these weak consoles(except for stealth games,maybe).
Therefore, the lack of geometry of the Dreamcast was not a major pob, the console can easily mix 2D and 3D.



I said WOW playing FFX but for the FMV, the 2D pre rendered scenes but not really for the 3D since i noticed Square were using high poly models only for in engine cutscenes and was fixing the camera to hide average textures. As you can see on the DF vid', it's a colorful game but it's often a bit washed out on this console.(there are similar examples with DOA2 DC vs PS2 screenshots)

It would have been interesting to see a Square Soft game on DC. The result would have been extremely different, i guess. More vibrancy on the DC, less SFX during battles.



Look at this Shenmue Dreampassport playable tech demo's hair...
It's fantastic, isn't it:

The fine details are...2D.
That was my earlier point. For this generation, the best was to mix 2D and 3D.Instead of full 3D hairs, the best solution on a FFX Dreamcast would have been to use this kind of 2D for hairs during cutscenes.

As for Soulcalibur and VF4 you mentioned, it's worth noting that Namco's fighter wasn't released 1 year after the launch of the DC but 8 months 10 days, it's still an early game, Namco's first and ported in less than 7 months (!).Give them 2 years and new tools for a modern soulcalibur on DC and i think they could crush DOA2 DC .

The PS2 isn't running a Naomi 2 game... The PS2 is running an ultra downgraded version of the Naomi 2's VF4 (the vanilla used a load of 2D backgrounds, the Evolution uses more 3D than the first port but on the other hand had to reduce texture quality on the background and reduce massively geometry of characters, they have now 7000 polygons which is more or less the polycount for VF3TB's characters and 8000 for DOA2)
VF4 evolution PS2: This time most palm trees are in 3D but they lowered the stone texture quality.(VS vanilla below)

VF4 Vanilla on PS4, most palm trees were in 2D but the stone texture is a little more detailed (it's emulations screens for both otherwise Sony boys would tell me i chose ugly screenshots... on actual ps2, add a mass alliasing for VF4 Vanilla and a little less for Evolution)

I played hours of VF4 EVO (nice looking game) but i still prefere the old DOA2 for the IQ, the amazing colors.
(VF4 effects, physix were interesting but, for example, the"impressive" dynamic sand of Jeffry's is completely ruining the graphics. I would prefere a detailed bump maped texture to a bland dynamic element...as for the ridiculous two 3D herbs in the background. STOP IT. The famous "next gen" grass in Tekken Tag PS2 was in fact 2D...it's brilliant, beautiful. Stop the useless masturbation on dynamic garbage sand or 3D grass. It's ugly as fuck.

IQ isn't a minor element, it's CRUCIAL:
During a game session, the charming effects of the PS2 are temporary...on the other hand, the bad IQ, alliasing is following you ALL THE TIME... Ironic situation, Sony was the one who praised the untouchable Playstation 2, a console for the ages...
Years later, gamers are complaining about PS2's ugly image on HD TVs, meanwhile they surprised by the clean downplayed little Dreamcast.
Who is future proof, huh ?


PS: Nope, it's not a Dreamcast VS PS2(first DC died before to show all its potential with all the best publishers) i was explaining why the PS2 was the only Playstation console that didn't impress me.(IQ is the most important.That's not facts,just my preference)

 

[SmokedMeat]

I would say the Dreamcast was a much bigger step up in power from the gen before it than the current gen.

Absolutely. We’ll never see a jump like that again.

 

[damiank]

Did you actually play GTA3 on PS2 or remember how atrocious it ran? smh You really think 19 fps should be acceptable with that atrocious draw distance, low resolution and jagginess? I think you missed the point entirely. Xbox is able to run the game at 1280 x 720 with smooth textures, much better draw distance, MSAA applied and with better framerate. There was no reason to drop the resolution or omit the option for those with HDTVs, there were deals behind closed doors to even allow Xbox to get GTA which was money hatted for about 6 months.

I did. Completed it even.

Did you actually watched that Xbox video? It's clear as day that console most of the time struggles with 720p and runs it so slow that it affects gameplay time - it's worse than PS2. Just because you can run something like that doesn't mean you should. Unless you like repeating to yourself that your Xbox runs everything at 720p.

And lastly, I don't think anyone at Sony gave a flying fukk about 3 and Vice City after they were out of exclusivity window and released two and one year later respectively on another platform. But believe what you want if that help ease you mind.

 

[tkscz]

I'm aware, but Sega was relying on Model 3 graphics having a longer impression than was realistic, a bet that they never made with their arcades before, it was completely out of character.

As a result, Naomi was barely more powerful.

I don't know who got drunk in the late '90s among top Sega leadership, but even with the Saturn failure they could have at least stayed in the race by making lower profits, even if it wasn't as much as the competition. They decided to run the race on credit.

You may want to look up Sega's history. From their arcade beginnings they have NEVER been good at business decision making.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

PS2's library is the goat BUT BUT BUT... PS2's hardware is a whole different business. Explanations soon

Eh, PS2’s image quality was so-so and the Dreamcast with its clean image was more impressive in the beginning. But PS2 had a phenomenal marketing campaign and everyone knew it was going to get all the games, before everyone else at least. And it delivered exactly that. It was kinda the Famicom of its generation, not a tech giant but if you were really interested in games you just had to get one.

 

[Fat Frog]

Eh, PS2’s image quality was so-so and the Dreamcast with its clean image was more impressive in the beginning. But PS2 had a phenomenal marketing campaign and everyone knew it was going to get all the games, before everyone else at least. And it delivered exactly that. It was kinda the Famicom of its generation, not a tech giant but if you were really interested in games you just had to get one.

You're right. I got 3 Playstation 2 (only my last PS2 survived), that's why this Playstation pissed me off.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

wild how the ps2 completely bitch slapped the dreamcast.
it's like the ps2 merely looked in the dreamcast's direction, and it died.

Which is unfortunate. The DC was out for an entire 13 months before the PS2 in the US, and there were no "must have" games at launch. I played my DC way more than my PS2 for a bit, but by the end of year one (or so) of PS2 we had bangers like Gran Turismo 3 and GTA3, Devil May Cry and MGS2. Dreamcast just couldn't compete.

 

[Puscifer]

it instantly made the n64/ps1 look like hot smelly garbage.
a local game store had japanese import models hooked up to TVs before the US launch, and i remember just going "...wat" when i saw the graphics.
so clean. so fluid.
couldnt wait for the US launch and got an import model.

something about japanese blue stinger stuck with me. christmas, and zombies, and a language i dont understand... fun.

the disc-pop region bypass trick was fun too.
dont remember it exactly, but you tape something down so the console thinks the disc lid is always closed, you boot up a region-correct game with the lid up, then at some point flick the disc out and put in whatever game you want. always worked.

wild how the ps2 completely bitch slapped the dreamcast.
it's like the ps2 merely looked in the dreamcast's direction, and it died.

DVD's huge impact can't be understated.
Easily 4-8x as much storage compared to the 1.2 gb disc on the dreamcast
True single player games, I loved the Dremcast but have to admit it's best library is arcade ports
The benefits of waiting in this case really paid dividends, the earliest PS2 games were besting the Dreamcast's best looking mid/end-of-life games
Was the cheapest DVD player out there, probably only beating Vinyl to CD in terms of consumers abandoning an aging format and adopting a new one, does anyone even remember how the Matrix was unofficially tied to the PS2 and it's ability to play DVD's?

Sony took advantage of a perfect storm and it was something to behold, I truly believe that if you can't find at least 100 games on the PS2s vast library then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Henry Panic]

You may want to look up Sega's history. From their arcade beginnings they have NEVER been good at business decision making.

No, this is much more of an issue than that. We are talking about choices an armchair high schooler would hesitate making.

It makes me wonder if they hired some people as a favor who didn't have the chops or brains to run the business properly, and likely weren't gamers themselves.

I agree Sega has a bad track record going way back, but the stuff they did between Saturn and Dreamcast was mind-boggling.

 

[tkscz]

No, this is much more of an issue than that. We are talking about choices an armchair high schooler would hesitate making.

It makes me wonder if they hired some people as a favor who didn't have the chops or brains to run the business properly, and likely weren't gamers themselves.

I agree Sega has a bad track record going way back, but the stuff they did between Saturn and Dreamcast was mind-boggling.

I will NEVER get over the reason there wasn't a Sonic game on the Saturn.

 

[Henry Panic]

I will NEVER get over the reason there wasn't a Sonic game on the Saturn.

There were 3, technically.

But the big issue is, it wouldn't have helped much. Almost all of Segas choices during that time would not have been mitigated by a AAA Sonic game.

I think Sega spent more on Saturn accessories than games. I also don't know how they screwed up a portable Genesis so badly, but they found a way.

 

[Fat Frog]

DVD's huge impact...
Easily 4-8x as much storage compared to the 1.2 gb disc on the dreamcast
True single player games, I loved the Dremcast but have to admit it's best library is arcade ports
The benefits of waiting in this case really paid dividends,

Holy shit, that's a sad sad sad cliche from the 90's .

Sega is far more than just arcade games. In a 2016 large scale poll by Sega most requested Dreamcast games were Sakura Wars, Jet Set Radio, Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue.(not really light in content like the usual arcade ports)

Even the top Dreamcast sellers are mostly non arcade ports like Sonic Adventure, NFL2K, Shenmue, Capcom's Code Veronica.
As an arcade game only Crazy Taxi made the top 5...
Which is also interesting since a mini open zone game of only 100MB data size... You could do much wider maps with the 1,2GB GD Roms size of the Dreamcast.

95% of games of that era doesn't need the DVD size of the PS2 (it's a real cumfort though. I like ease of use, i'm a Stadia fan ), look at the gamecube... Were gamers complaining all the time of the 1,5GB mini DVD of that console ? Maybe a minority...

GTA 3's file size was only 900mb...

GTA Vice City 2,2gb... Ok, cool, it makes a few games (with San Andreas)out of hundreds really too heavy for the Dreamcast and the Gamecube. Good for the PS2.

But is it really impossible to make open world on them ? Really debatable if we accept a few downgrades.

For instance, Sony UMDs are only 1,8 GB and PSP GTA Liberty/Vice Cities are only 400 and 500MB... A miracle ! So what ? Miracles only happens on Sony's consoles ?
Give me break

I guess the PSP with other tricks,used texture compression abilities to store the maps. Gamecube and Dreamcast can do texture compression as well, among other things.

So yeah, DVD was cool for that era but it was mandatory only for a tiny number of open worlds. Hundreds of full fledged consoles games (non arcade then) can and does run on Dreamcast and Gamecube without DVDs...

As for the Dreamcast, people forget it was a 98 (!) hardware, most of Sega Fans would have been happy with a 5 years lifespan (98-2003) and then we were ready for a new console in 2003 or 2004(6 years). We never thought it would be as powerful as the 2001 consoles like the Xbox or the Gamecube...

 

[Gamer79]

I stood in line on 9/9/1999 to get one. I saw the sixth sense at 9pm then slid in line for babbages for the midnight launch. I got it home with a few classics at 1am. It blew me away. Jumping from n64 (my main console) to dreamcast was a true night and day difference. It was a true graphics juggarnaut for it's time. Let us also not forget what it did for the online gaming scene. It was my first online game experience and many others.

#1 ranked on Dricas world (only die hard nfl 2k fans will get that reference)

 

[Gamer79]

Holy shit, that's a sad sad sad cliche from the 90's .

Sega is far more than just arcade games. In a 2016 large scale poll by Sega most requested Dreamcast games were Sakura Wars, Jet Set Radio, Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue.(not really light in content like the usual arcade ports)

Even the top Dreamcast sellers are mostly non arcade ports like Sonic Adventure, NFL2K, Shenmue, Capcom's Code Veronica.
As an arcade game only Crazy Taxi made the top 5...
Which is also interesting since a mini open zone game of only 100MB data size... You could do much wider maps with the 1,2GB GD Roms size of the Dreamcast.

95% of games of that era doesn't need the DVD size of the PS2 (it's a real cumfort though. I like ease of use, i'm a Stadia fan ), look at the gamecube... Were gamers complaining all the time of the 1,5GB mini DVD of that console ? Maybe a minority...

GTA 3's file size was only 900mb...

GTA Vice City 2,2gb... Ok, cool, it makes a few games (with San Andreas)out of hundreds really too heavy for the Dreamcast and the Gamecube. Good for the PS2.

But is it really impossible to make open world on them ? Really debatable if we accept a few downgrades.

For instance, Sony UMDs are only 1,8 GB and PSP GTA Liberty/Vice Cities are only 400 and 500MB... A miracle ! So what ? Miracles only happens on Sony's consoles ?
Give me break

I guess the PSP with other tricks,used texture compression abilities to store the maps. Gamecube and Dreamcast can do texture compression as well, among other things.

So yeah, DVD was cool for that era but it was mandatory only for a tiny number of open worlds. Hundreds of full fledged consoles games (non arcade then) can and does run on Dreamcast and Gamecube without DVDs...

As for the Dreamcast, people forget it was a 98 (!) hardware, most of Sega Fans would have been happy with a 5 years lifespan (98-2003) and then we were ready for a new console in 2003 or 2004(6 years). We never thought it would be as powerful as the 2001 consoles like the Xbox or the Gamecube...

Also going from GTA 3 to Saints Row on the dreamcast was a huge step up.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

DC was a solid system if you just cared about Capcom games, some JRPGs and anything Sega made. It was a good system, cheap and played these games well.

But if you were a gamer willing to wait an extra few years and pay an extra $100, you could get a DVD based system (which was big at the time killing two birds with one stone playing movies), which had way more more games from:

- EA (the shit loads of games they make including sports)
- Konami (MG)
- Square (FF)
- Namco (Tekken, Ace Combat)
- R* (GTA3)

These companies might had made a handful of games on DC, but not their heavy hitters which came on PS2. Even better (hindsight 20/20), Sega games came out to PS2 anyway where I bought NFL 2k2.

I enjoyed Sega Genesis, never got a Saturn, but no way I'd get a DC. Sega Sports were great and so was Soul Calibur (I rented DC to test out some games), but that's all I saw worth playing. Armada was good too.

 

[Little Chicken]

Going from 32/64-bit consoles to Dreamcast was a revelation.

 

[Fat Frog]

There were 3, technically.

But the big issue is, it wouldn't have helped much. Almost all of Segas choices during that time would not have been mitigated by a AAA Sonic game.

They should have tried to produce several 3D Sonic games with the engine shown in Sonic Jam (2 similar but enhanced sequels from a 3D sonic formula could have been a bit profitable in the west).

Full fledged Sonic 3D games like this would have helped to make profit (reduce the debt). Sony would still be the leader but with Shenmue Saturn and the RAM packs possibility for 3D games, it would have been pretty cool for the Saturn.

 

[THE DUCK]

Dreamcast rules, everything else drools.

 

[Fat Frog]

Dreamcast's ease of programming is often used as an excuse to claim the console wouldn't do much more if it survived...

Problem is the Megadrive also was simple to use (my screen is from Treasure's Maeda).

The Megadrive improved a lot from 1988 to 1995 (7 years). Same for the simple to programme PSX...

The Dreamcast was killed 2 years and 4 months after its launch...(If the Megadrive would have died as early as the DC, Sonic 1 wouldn't even exist...)Head Hunter's creators said the Dreamcast released games were far from showing its full potential.

 

[coffinbirth]

Holy shit, that's a sad sad sad cliche from the 90's .

Sega is far more than just arcade games. In a 2016 large scale poll by Sega most requested Dreamcast games were Sakura Wars, Jet Set Radio, Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue.(not really light in content like the usual arcade ports)

Even the top Dreamcast sellers are mostly non arcade ports like Sonic Adventure, NFL2K, Shenmue, Capcom's Code Veronica.
As an arcade game only Crazy Taxi made the top 5...
Which is also interesting since a mini open zone game of only 100MB data size... You could do much wider maps with the 1,2GB GD Roms size of the Dreamcast.

95% of games of that era doesn't need the DVD size of the PS2 (it's a real cumfort though. I like ease of use, i'm a Stadia fan ), look at the gamecube... Were gamers complaining all the time of the 1,5GB mini DVD of that console ? Maybe a minority...

GTA 3's file size was only 900mb...

GTA Vice City 2,2gb... Ok, cool, it makes a few games (with San Andreas)out of hundreds really too heavy for the Dreamcast and the Gamecube. Good for the PS2.

But is it really impossible to make open world on them ? Really debatable if we accept a few downgrades.

For instance, Sony UMDs are only 1,8 GB and PSP GTA Liberty/Vice Cities are only 400 and 500MB... A miracle ! So what ? Miracles only happens on Sony's consoles ?
Give me break

I guess the PSP with other tricks,used texture compression abilities to store the maps. Gamecube and Dreamcast can do texture compression as well, among other things.

So yeah, DVD was cool for that era but it was mandatory only for a tiny number of open worlds. Hundreds of full fledged consoles games (non arcade then) can and does run on Dreamcast and Gamecube without DVDs...

As for the Dreamcast, people forget it was a 98 (!) hardware, most of Sega Fans would have been happy with a 5 years lifespan (98-2003) and then we were ready for a new console in 2003 or 2004(6 years). We never thought it would be as powerful as the 2001 consoles like the Xbox or the Gamecube...

The vast majority of the tentpole PS2 games, games that define the system, required the storage capacity of the DVD medium, stop with this narrative. Yes, there are hundreds and hundreds that do not, but they are mostly ports from older systems such as DC and arcade and puzzle games and the like. Hell, there were plenty of Dreamcast games that had to be split into multiple discs. Shenmue was ridiculous for this, and it's sequel, and don't get me started on D2...

I understand what you're saying about game size vs. storage cost, literally and figuratively, but it's disingenuous to assert that "95% of games from that era" didn't require DVD as a storage medium. I'd go as far as to say that figure would be off for PS1 as well. An ass load of multi disc games there too. Just a cursory glance at my nointro PS2 set shows about a 50/50 split between </>1.5GB.

 

[Fat Frog]

The vast majority of the tentpole PS2 games, games that define the system, required the storage capacity of the DVD medium... Shenmue was ridiculous for this

That's my point. DVD would have been better (cumfy to stay on the couch) but that wasn't mandatory for 95% of the games of that era...

Dreamcast and Gamecube prove it.

GTA3 is only 900mb.
Only latest open worlds and maybe extremely minor other genres would absolutely needs it.

Gamecube and Dreamcast seems to have texture compression so it reduces highly the number of games really out of reach.
(PSP reduced GTA Liberty/Vice City Stories to 400 and 500mb so...hard to believe Gamecube and Dreamcast cannot compress datas as well)

 

[Henry Panic]

They should have tried to produce several 3D Sonic games with the engine shown in Sonic Jam (2 similar but enhanced sequels from a 3D sonic formula could have been a bit profitable in the west).


Full fledged Sonic 3D games like this would have helped to make profit (reduce the debt). Sony would still be the leader but with Shenmue Saturn and the RAM packs possibility for 3D games, it would have been pretty cool for the Saturn.

That's the thing. It wouldn't have.

People who say this have to ignore everything else they eere doing, and how flash in the pan the Sonic games were on the Drive.

Sonic Adventure came out right when Crash 3, Spyro, and Banjo released and looked better than anything on older consoles by miles and was faster than Sonic Jam with it's unclean graphics on an actual TV. And it sold less than all 3 of the games I mentioned.

Sega had too many problems for only one solution, and that goes for every gaming brand struggling then. They made too many mistakes too fast, even on the PC side this happened with Commodore for example.

I enjoy my Saturn but your leadership has to mess up pretty bad to only sell 1M and two quarters in the biggest gaming market in 3 years.

 

[Fat Frog]

That's the thing. It wouldn't have.

People who say this have to ignore everything else they eere doing, and how flash in the pan the Sonic games were on the Drive.

Sonic Adventure came out right when Crash 3, Spyro, and Banjo released and looked better than anything on older consoles by miles and was faster than Sonic Jam with it's unclean graphics on an actual TV. And it sold less than all 3 of the games I mentioned.

Sega had too many problems for only one solution, and that goes for every gaming brand struggling then. They made too many mistakes too fast, even on the PC side this happened with Commodore for example.

I enjoy my Saturn but your leadership has to mess up pretty bad to only sell 1M and two quarters in the biggest gaming market in 3 years.

I agree, Sega did too many mistakes unfortunately.

 

[Henry Panic]

That's my point. DVD would have been better (cumfy to stay on the couch) but that wasn't mandatory for 95% of the games of that era...

Dreamcast and Gamecube prove it.

GTA3 is only 900mb.
Only latest open worlds and maybe extremely minor other genres would absolutely needs it.

Gamecube and Dreamcast seems to have texture compression so it reduces highly the number of games really out of reach.
(PSP reduced GTA Liberty/Vice City Stories to 400 and 500mb so...hard to believe Gamecube and Dreamcast cannot compress datas as well)

Wanted to nitpick here and bring up that those PSP GTA games were not reduced, they were made for the PSP. Vice City Stories actually has a lot less than Vice City even though it has a similar map. And better protagonist.

 

[Fat Frog]

Wanted to nitpick here and bring up that those PSP GTA games were not reduced, they were made for the PSP. Vice City Stories actually has a lot less than Vice City even though it has a similar map. And better protagonist.

Fine. But texture compression and other tricks still exist on DC/NGC...

Vice City would probably be extremely difficult for other consoles (of course it would require concessions) but i don't believe the 900mb GTA3 would be out of reach.(of course not 1:1 port)

 

[Henry Panic]

Fine. But texture compression and other tricks still exist on DC/NGC...

Vice City would probably be extremely difficult for other consoles (of course it would require concessions) but i don't believe the 900mb GTA3 would be out of reach.(of course not 1:1 port)

Technically Vice City wouldn't be difficult, they could save almost 200mb alone just reducing the audio quality and changing the format, which many low space PS2 games did and we're fine with.

I just was pointing out those games were made for the PSP.

 

[Beechos]

Dreamcast blew everything out of water when it came out arcade quality gsmes at home.

 

[JackMcGunns]

I did. Completed it even.

Did you actually watched that Xbox video? It's clear as day that console most of the time struggles with 720p and runs it so slow that it affects gameplay time - it's worse than PS2. Just because you can run something like that doesn't mean you should. Unless you like repeating to yourself that your Xbox runs everything at 720p.

And lastly, I don't think anyone at Sony gave a flying fukk about 3 and Vice City after they were out of exclusivity window and released two and one year later respectively on another platform. But believe what you want if that help ease you mind.

And you were ok with framerates dropping to the teens? the driving parts are where the framerate suffered the most, hence why you're seeing it in that video, but it was much worse on PS2. Normal running and shooting was proven to run 30fps at 720p.

Imagine this, you take a game and simply apply a 720p resolution with zero tweaking or optimization, you slap in on to the hardware and it's already running pretty good. Are you seriously suggesting that the developers could not have optimized the game to a locked 30fps when without touching the code it's almost there? Xbox was severely underutilized, it's a proven fact.

 

[marjo]

The perceptual difference between the Dreamcast and PS1/N64 (not talking raw specs) was much larger than any generational jump since.

 

[Ecotic]

I thought the Dreamcast looked phenomenal at launch in 1999, and it was actually a 1998 machine. I wish it had launched in 1998 in North America with five or so incredible games, it would have blown my mind even more. Although that would have spoiled my enjoyment of Ocarina of Time and the other N64 games I was playing at the time.

As the years have gone by though, I really wish the Dreamcst had been a $250 machine and had a more powerful CPU for more intense geometry. While the Dreamcast's games looked incredible due to the crisp textures and high resolution, the lack of ability to generate higher amounts of polygons like the PS2 could was really limiting in terms of the types of games that could be done on the Dreamcast.

 

[Fat Frog]

the lack of ability to generate higher amounts of polygons like the PS2 could was really limiting in terms of the types of games that could be done on the Dreamcast.

I think you're thinking more about storage (wider open world like San Andreas )than polycount.

If you were really thinking about polygon amounts. How many genres would be impossible on DC, i'm curious? (It's not forbidden to limit geometry to fit with Dreamcast's limits, it's called downgrad )