-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is Dreamcast really more powerful than PS2?
- Thread starter nkarafo
- Start date
More Fun To Compute
Member
IQ really sucked on PS2. Framerates were horrible on Dreamcast. In a competition for which was worst you have to say Dreamcast but neither were best.
kingkaiser
Member
It's green yuck
more colors
Indeed, monochromatic textures were a trademark of most PS2 games, sadly.
The "Graphics Synthesizer" was really limited with only 4MB V-Ram and no hardware-based texture compression, which has been a bad joke, even back then.
Hey look, monochromatic textures everywhere!
Agreed.
The types of effects present in MGS2 were unheard of at the time. Things like depth of field were first experienced on PS2. Even the PC wouldn't catch up for a while on that front. The Dreamcast never proved that it could handle such things let alone matching the geometry.
Manmademan
Member
Yep. Gradius V and R type Final were doing the same thing if not better, with 3D interactive environments. Shmups tend not to be technical showpieces, but that game is mediocre even by PS2 standards.
I know you joke, but if you really look at a lot of Dreamcast games, the textures actually tend to hold up worse in a lot of ways. Look at Shenmue (those shots I posted). The textures are obscenely low resolution.
Most DC games also used heavy mipmapping which resulted in a complete loss of detail as textures moved away from the camera. PS2 did not typically use this, which made for a noisier image, but ultimately gave the impression of sharper visuals. I believe this is how Model 3 arcade hardware handled textures as well (no mipmapping).
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
No way, the PS2 eventually showed its strength with later generation titles. Dreamcast did have phenomenal image quality, though.
OMG guys look at the Recca (NES) game, it looks like a NeoGeo game!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6oB-ytKhVI
SpoonyBard
Banned
Well, MGS3 is already od 3DS, and it's still the same game with slight alterations. Now, could DC do GTA:SA in fashion that the game would still be recognisable?
RagingAvatar
Member
Dreamcast vs. PS2 is a lot like the discussion between PS3 vs X360.
X360 and Dreamcast are great capable machines that are easy to develop for and easy to squeeze great power from.
PS2, thanks to it's VU units and PS3, due to it's Cell SPEs, both dwarf the other two.
To all those who say the PS2 was VRAM limited, I applaud you and agree - it's a damned shame. Look at games like Shadow of the Colossus and witness 4bit textures everywhere - a real necessity to squeeze that game out at 480p.
A damned shame.
X360 and Dreamcast are great capable machines that are easy to develop for and easy to squeeze great power from.
PS2, thanks to it's VU units and PS3, due to it's Cell SPEs, both dwarf the other two.
To all those who say the PS2 was VRAM limited, I applaud you and agree - it's a damned shame. Look at games like Shadow of the Colossus and witness 4bit textures everywhere - a real necessity to squeeze that game out at 480p.
A damned shame.
3DS is more capable hardware than Dreamcast yet, despite that, barely handles MGS3 with a maximum framerate of 20 fps with lots of slowdown, missing effects, all while operating at a lower resolution. It's a mess on 3DS.
The Dreamcast is not capable of matching the 3DS at all.
Manmademan
Member
eventually? less than a year.
LOL, really?
RumblingRosco
Member
The majority in this thread are way off base. The Dreamcast had more RAM, faster RAM, more VRAM, a more powerful GPU, a better CPU with twice as many cores, and managed all of this with quieter cooling, an internal PSU, smaller form factor, and lower idle power utilization.
Not to mention, the Dreamcast had asynchronous gaming with the VMU, better online play, a much better (and larger) library, and lower price even with packed-in games.
Seriously, are people saying the PS2 was more powerful just trolling?
Not to mention, the Dreamcast had asynchronous gaming with the VMU, better online play, a much better (and larger) library, and lower price even with packed-in games.
Seriously, are people saying the PS2 was more powerful just trolling?
SkylineRKR
Member
Textures of a lot of DC games are pretty much PS1 at higher resolution and framerate. They are really blocky, but a lot of color and high framerate saved it somewhat.
Look at the geometry of Headhunter, one of the final and better looking DC games:
Look at the geometry of Headhunter, one of the final and better looking DC games:
Manmademan
Member
lol. ZOE2 should have been the first post, really.
i can't tell with this post
Manmademan
Member
False on all counts. Specs for both systems are already posted. The PS2 beats the DC in all of those areas.
edit: now that I see the "larger library" argument, this poster is either a time traveler or high on crack
SpoonyBard
Banned
Yeah, I played the demo and it's a shitty port, but dc should be able to handle similar port without needing 7 discs.
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
MGS2 is easily the most overrated graphic showcase of all times.
Fixed aerial camera, awesome poor texturing, low poly counts outside main characters, lots of 2D tricks, etc. On top of that extreme lackluster base, they throw a lot of backbuffer effects and it was enough to make most people happy. There is like 2 sets of textures in the whole game!
One of the saddest pages in gaming history is that media sold that as Dreamcast killer and people bought it.
Fixed aerial camera, awesome poor texturing, low poly counts outside main characters, lots of 2D tricks, etc. On top of that extreme lackluster base, they throw a lot of backbuffer effects and it was enough to make most people happy. There is like 2 sets of textures in the whole game!
One of the saddest pages in gaming history is that media sold that as Dreamcast killer and people bought it.
SkylineRKR
Member
The 3DS version is shit, and is perhaps even more shit when hooked up to the big screen. You'll need to downsample even further from there. Essentially leaving a shell of the game. 3DS carts should still be bigger than DC GD-Rom as well. I believe MGS3 3D is a whopping 4gb, which is 3 or 4 times the size of a GD.
So its 'possible', like a Gameboy port of Killer Instinct was 'possible'.
KojiKnight
Member
Whooooosh.
Manmademan
Member
you know how i know you didn't play MGS2?
Well, they would have to cut ALL of the post processing, seriously reduce particles, reduce geometry across the board (including more grass removal), among other things. It really wouldn't look much like MGS3. The visuals were designed for PS2. The game would have to be designed very differently for Dreamcast.
The 3DS is actually capable of effects that the PS2 was not, which it can use to make up for some limitations. I suspect that the Dreamcast would be capable of something more like Peace Walker, though, which actually has all of those missing elements (smaller maps, less geometry, minimal post processing, etc).
Couldn't possibly disagree more. It looked absolutely jaw dropping in motion. Nothing else looked like that at the time. Truly a remarkable visual feast.
You're wrong about the camera, though.
The PS2 could not render that many shitty friends.
Before commenting on games, you should probably play them first
There is no fixed aerial camera in MGS2, you would know this if you played just 5 min of the game.
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
You can try.
SkylineRKR
Member
I think he already declared the Dreamcast the more powerful console earlier in this thread.
Ah right, ill go play League of Legends instead then
Manmademan
Member
MGS2 didn't have a fixed camera. that camera was dynamic, and adusted itself on the fly based on what environment you were in. SOME points had an overhead aerial view, some were behind the back, some were 3/4. Depends on where you were.
here's a Gameplay clip of the big shell that demonstrates this.
On top of that, MGS2 could be switched to first person view for aiming and combat at any time. Fixed camera it was not.
That was a deliberate design decision by Kojima, as shown with MGS3. That view did not work well for the vast open environments used in MGS3- so kojima implemented an over the shoulder TPS view for that game.
KojiKnight
Member
How did you play MGS2 without ever using the first person camera?
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
You cant run and move camera on MGS2 as you can on shenmue or any other 3rd person game. There is a BIG difference.
Nope. I said PS2 is no better. Way different.
Nope. I said PS2 is no better. Way different.
SkylineRKR
Member
You're right, not literally but you do deny that the Ps2 is more powerful:
Although I agree with the first part, same shit happened with PS3, the rest is rather far fetched and wishful thinking. But compare it to any other generation, and I doubt a geometry jump over time from DC games to Ps2 games shown here never happened on a single system.
Although I agree with the first part, same shit happened with PS3, the rest is rather far fetched and wishful thinking. But compare it to any other generation, and I doubt a geometry jump over time from DC games to Ps2 games shown here never happened on a single system.
Not enough God of War 2 screenshots in here, that game squeezed out every last bit of juice that the PS2 had probably (well, it released in 2007 too).
The Dreamcast was only on the market for a few years time - so we never got to see most developers pull off things with the system like Team Ico, ND, Insomniac, and SSM did with the PS2.
But fuck man, some of you guys are still salty over the DC aren't you?
The Dreamcast was only on the market for a few years time - so we never got to see most developers pull off things with the system like Team Ico, ND, Insomniac, and SSM did with the PS2.
But fuck man, some of you guys are still salty over the DC aren't you?
iLLmaticV3
Member
The only people that believed the Dreamcast was more powerful than the PS2 were either people with buyers remorse or people that hated Sony. At least in my experience.
No there is not. There's only a difference if the camera remains completely fixed. If the camera were selected for performance reasons you wouldn't be allowed to look around in first person.
Shenmue isn't exactly an impressive looking game, though, with its blurry textures and complete lack of lighting. It was also limited to rather small areas all divided by lengthy loading screens. Let's not forget that stuff...
See, I don't think that argument holds water simply because we saw so many impressive games on PS2 within its first two years on the market.
SpoonyBard
Banned
In my mind MGS2 is still more impressive than MGS3 graphically, maybe because it's cleaner looking and runs a bit smoother. I know technically MGS3 has more things going... But when I think of MGS2 I remember messing around at the tanker level enjoying the weather effects and character models and animations, and thinking wow, Dreamcast couldn't do this, this looks amazing. The jungle in MGS3 looked pretty messy in comparison, ugly textures and not enough polygons...
Gameplaywise DC could do both, but the particle effects are definitely out.
Gameplaywise DC could do both, but the particle effects are definitely out.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
haha, the man.
Manmademan
Member
There is also a "big difference" between a dynamic camera that can be switched to first person on the fly, and a "fixed aerial view."
MGS2 does not have a fixed camera, period.
KojiKnight
Member
You get a lot of people saying "If you gave them more time!" it would have been on par with the PS2... but I have to wonder, did the studios working on the DC even have the technical skill to produce these theoretical games?
Sure, if you gave them unlimited magical funds, they could hire enough people with skills to do better... but as those studios were at the start of the DC era, would they have been technically capable of pushing these supposed mad good DC graphics 5 years in? Looking at how "well" most of them transitioned into PS2/GCN development? I don't think so.
Sure, if you gave them unlimited magical funds, they could hire enough people with skills to do better... but as those studios were at the start of the DC era, would they have been technically capable of pushing these supposed mad good DC graphics 5 years in? Looking at how "well" most of them transitioned into PS2/GCN development? I don't think so.
Similar threads
- Poll