-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
how well did gc compare to ps2 graphically?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
JonathanPower
Member
Textures were a lot better on DC, since it had 8 mb of vram, plus I remeber it supported a 8:1 texture compression. The Ps2 had only 4 mb of vram and no texture compression, plus a very basic graphic chip in comparison with the PowerVr2 of the DC. The PowerVr2 also supported tile rendering, making it really ahead of its time.
Programmers eventually learned how to get around the Ps2 limitations to provide decent looking textures, but I think that if the DC lasted more, we could have seen an equal improvement.
It's a question of specs, if you compare the graphic chip of the Ps2 you can see that it is much more basic than the PowerVr2 chip of the Dreamcast. Which is why when Dead or Alive 2 was ported on Ps2, they had to use lower resolution textures.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I'd imagine it had more to do with the games themselves than graphics.... not that graphics were irrelevant of course. But yeah, as good of an arcade game system as the Dreamcast was (much like the Saturn before it), there just weren't enough "substantial" games that could last someone for more than a rental period.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
No joke, there are still people who refuse to buy a Sony console because they're pissed about Sony "killing" Sega.
Also, I apologize for the double post. I'm going to commit seppuku
Red Blaster
Member
The real world.
Those three games pushed a ton of geometry @ 60 fps, something the Dreamcast could never do. Hell even junk like The Bouncer was outputting high polycounts, tons of post-processing and great lighting @ 60 fps; that shit looked close to FF8's CG cutscenes.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
id say there is some truth to this.
Especially since it was a lot more easy to get PS2 component cables than GameCube ones.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Uhhhhhhh...
Because the DC was a very, very good console and it's a shame it and its developers never got to mature for a full generation to see what it ultimately could do. I don't think anybody would say the Dreamcast could match top-end PS2 visually, but at the same time there are certain titles like Shenmue and Le Mans that show it could definitely hang out in the same crowd.
And the jump from SA1 to SA2, graphical improvements all-round at double the frame rate.
SniperHunter
Banned
Gamecube was almost a generation ahead of PS2. A launch title like Rouge Squadron on GC was never surpassed by anything on PS2.
So we all agree that the Xbox was slightly more powerful than the Gamecube and that by most metrics the Gamecube was a notable step above the PS2, right? Good.
Now let's get down to this PS2 and Dreamcast business. The Dreamcast has the IQ advantage. Most Dreamcast games can be played in 480p, and there was that edge detect AA all over the place. But outside of that? I remember a lot of talk about the Dreamcast having the VRAM advantage for textures, and I do believe this on some level, but it seems like over time developers found better ways to make use of PS2's shared memory? I'd like more info on this.
But then you have PS2's clear advantages: ludicrous polycounts and framebuffer abilities. Tons of DC games look poly-starved in comparison, right from the PS2's launch, and I have a hard time believing that the Dreamcast could have delivered a more convincing version of, say, Virtua Fighter 4.
Now let's get down to this PS2 and Dreamcast business. The Dreamcast has the IQ advantage. Most Dreamcast games can be played in 480p, and there was that edge detect AA all over the place. But outside of that? I remember a lot of talk about the Dreamcast having the VRAM advantage for textures, and I do believe this on some level, but it seems like over time developers found better ways to make use of PS2's shared memory? I'd like more info on this.
But then you have PS2's clear advantages: ludicrous polycounts and framebuffer abilities. Tons of DC games look poly-starved in comparison, right from the PS2's launch, and I have a hard time believing that the Dreamcast could have delivered a more convincing version of, say, Virtua Fighter 4.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
IIRC some games looked best on GC, even when compared to Xbox. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time springs to mind.
JonathanPower
Member
You should remeber that many early Ps2 games like The Bouncer were not even rendered in full 640 x 480 res, but run in a sort of 640x280 mode with bad flickering. Not even close to the clean look of FF8's CG cutscenes.
SniperHunter
Banned
no it couldn't. I remember bump mapping was a huge deal during those days lol. Then Naughty Dog came out and said they could do bump mapping in the Jak games.
SniperHunter
Banned
Jak 2 and Jak 3 alone destroy any DC title...those games were really advanced. I was a PC gamer during those days and I was extremely impressed by Jak 2 and Jak 3.
vagabondarts
Member
The thing that hurt PS2 the most (this was my favorite system before DS showed up and took its place) was the hardware was literally the cheapest build quality in the world.
I don't miss getting disc read errors.
Also the textures on models were better on xbox and gamecube
I don't miss getting disc read errors.
Also the textures on models were better on xbox and gamecube
Phonomezer
Banned
Comparing Shenmue to Kingdom Hearts. Hilarious.
Syphon Filter
Member
gow 2 came out 7 years later,we never got to see what else DC could do.
But that was brought down by the downgrade in art-design. All the characters looked like they had mutated.
BUT ANYWAY
Let's stop derailing.
JonathanPower
Member
Slave Zero on Dreamcast had bump mapping.
Yeah.
Even though Dreamcast wouldn't be able to match PS2's performance, it's a real shame we never found out what late hi-profile games would manage to look like on the console.
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
That has nothing do with this thread.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Lol, bump mapping. Maaaaaaan I remember that was the SHIT back in the Matrox Mystique days.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
Wasn't the Gamecube considered to be the easiest console to program to of its generation, excluding the limited size of the discs?
Also, even when pushing the PS2 to its limits with God of War, Gamecube still had Starfox Adventures, Wind Waker, Rogue Squadron, F-Zero GX and Metroid Prime looking fantastic and much earlier in its cycle.
Also, even when pushing the PS2 to its limits with God of War, Gamecube still had Starfox Adventures, Wind Waker, Rogue Squadron, F-Zero GX and Metroid Prime looking fantastic and much earlier in its cycle.
Tte GC beat the PS2 in almost everything, except RAM (24MBs versus 32MBs), fillrate (which isn't a surprise, since the PS2 has more raw fillrate than the fucking PS3) and storage.
The PS2 GPU had several shortcomings compared to the GC's and Xbox's, feature-wise. Actually, each one of those console's GPUs belong to a different generation:
- The PS2's was similar to a NVidia Riva 128, and actually lacked features the Dreamcast had, like mipmapping and multitexturing. The GPU was completely dumb (even calling it a GPU is debatable) and only dealt with rasterizing, all vertex transformations had to be done by the CPU.
- The GC's was similar to a GeForce 2 in features, with hardware transform and lighting (frees the CPU from dealing with individual vertices), multitexturing with up to 8 simultaneous texture layers, a very flexible texture combiner (the TEV) and support for indirect textures (I'm not even sure the GF2 supported this).
- The Xbox's was similar to the GeForce 3, which could do everything the GF2 did but had vertex shaders, cubemaps and hardware shadowmapping support. The 1.1 pixel shaders weren't truly shaders: they were just a fancy way to setup the texture combiners, but they made things much easier nonetheless. The vertex shaders combined with dot3 texture combining (which the GC lacked) allowed games to use normal maps in the way games use nowadays and per-pixel point lights.
The PS2 GPU had several shortcomings compared to the GC's and Xbox's, feature-wise. Actually, each one of those console's GPUs belong to a different generation:
- The PS2's was similar to a NVidia Riva 128, and actually lacked features the Dreamcast had, like mipmapping and multitexturing. The GPU was completely dumb (even calling it a GPU is debatable) and only dealt with rasterizing, all vertex transformations had to be done by the CPU.
- The GC's was similar to a GeForce 2 in features, with hardware transform and lighting (frees the CPU from dealing with individual vertices), multitexturing with up to 8 simultaneous texture layers, a very flexible texture combiner (the TEV) and support for indirect textures (I'm not even sure the GF2 supported this).
- The Xbox's was similar to the GeForce 3, which could do everything the GF2 did but had vertex shaders, cubemaps and hardware shadowmapping support. The 1.1 pixel shaders weren't truly shaders: they were just a fancy way to setup the texture combiners, but they made things much easier nonetheless. The vertex shaders combined with dot3 texture combining (which the GC lacked) allowed games to use normal maps in the way games use nowadays and per-pixel point lights.
Because the bitterness still stings.
People still blame Sony for the death of the DC when really, it was sega fans that killed it by not supporting it enough.
It's a bit like White guilt over slavery.
vagabondarts
Member
This should show you why DC didn't stand a chance, the hype was unbelievable. Listen to what Ken Kutaragi said in an interview with Newsweek about the PS2:
Also Saddam Hussein was supposedly importing them to control missiles because they were so powerful or whatever. Just ridiculous levels of hype for the PS2
Ken Kutaragi said:
Also Saddam Hussein was supposedly importing them to control missiles because they were so powerful or whatever. Just ridiculous levels of hype for the PS2
Magicpaint
Member
Well it also didn't help that Sony/Microsoft gave theoretical polygon pushing numbers while Nintendo went with in-game stuff. It made the GC look really underpowered and when you add the lacking hardware features, well...
Magicpaint
Member
Polygon count and lighting were a step below the Xbox version iirc. Textures were better on GC though.
GAME failed because you didn't buy enough shares.
electroshockwave
Member
Fixed as I don't see how it's the fans' fault. But it I do find it funny that some people still bitterly blame Sony for Sega's exit from the console market.
JordanN
Banned
Gamecube had over twice the polygon power than PS2. The TEV could also output some nice effects when developer's coded for it. Textures were also better on Gamecube.
There was simply no debate to which console is overall superior and there shouldn't be.
Gamecube launched after PS2, why would it be weaker?
There was simply no debate to which console is overall superior and there shouldn't be.
Gamecube launched after PS2, why would it be weaker?
No, the root of all failures still start with Sega and the Saturn.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I'd argue it started with the Genesis, when they started shitting out add-ons without giving any thought to what their strategy with them should be. Especially the 32x. They managed to piss off customers and developers thanks to that shit, which carried over to the Saturn, when they pissed everyone off again (surprise launch, anyone?) So it's really not much of a surprise that by the time the DC rolled around, everyone was kinda like "go eat a dick, Sega."
They were always a better software company than a hardware company, though, so whatever.
The Saturn was too expensive, but the root is way back with the 32X and SEGA CD.
Red Blaster
Member
More like Sega Of America being morons and killing a great machine because they were fucking around with BS like the 32X
Fact: Saturn > Dreamcast
all day every day
Nope, gotta go further back.
I still can't believe people ask the question as though it's the GC's graphics that need to be compared to the PS2's. Like the GC was just on par or worse than the PS2 graphically.
The better question is how the PS2 compares to GC. And the real interesting discussion is in how Xbox and GC compared to each other. Xbox was not in a league of its own, because the GC could hang with it. Not only that, it has a respectable list of games that are contenders for the best looking games of that gen -- not just because of clever art either, but actual raw technical showcases.
The better question is how the PS2 compares to GC. And the real interesting discussion is in how Xbox and GC compared to each other. Xbox was not in a league of its own, because the GC could hang with it. Not only that, it has a respectable list of games that are contenders for the best looking games of that gen -- not just because of clever art either, but actual raw technical showcases.
Majmun
Member
gutter_trash
Banned
GC was graphically superior, PS2 had worse AA than all consoles that generation including Dreamcat
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll