Dreamcast was better than the PS2

[DracIsBack]

But there is no point in arguing over the power of the PS2.

 

My issue is not that the PS2 has technical advantages. It's the crazy claims of 'vast superiority' that are really pushing it. My GameCube and XBox are also better than the PS2 in many respects technically but I wouldn't call them "vastly superior" anymore than I think is reasonable to compare the PS2 and Dreamcast.

 

it's a little newer, a little better but the claims some are making are crazily over the top.

[kevincal]

Dreamcast is def in the same league as PS2, XBOX & GC. Just the PS2 library obliterates the DC library, and the PS2 is capable of better graphics. PS2 has a better controller as well (maybe not d-pad..) Plus PS2 has PS1 capatibility and DVD playing.. DC's aren't very reliable either. Mine jammed up on me, PS2 has never had probs. Always heard DC's aren't very reliable. There are a lot of cool arcade type games on the DC, if that's your thing. The graphics really are smooth and pretty. I think the DC and GC have very similar looking graphics. Smooth and shiny.

Edited April 16, 2009 by kevincal

[dreamcastrip]

Rez on DC - looks better to some due to DC having anti-aliasing therefore meaning it had no ugly "jaggies" unlike the PS2 version.

Rez on PS2 - looks better to some due to it being smoother as it ran at a higher frame rate tan the DC version.

 

As for the "washed out" textures of many PS2 games in comparison to DC, well the explanation's quite simple: DC has double the video RAM of PS2.

 

GTA4? Technically a fine game, granted. "The Real Driving Simulator"? Yeah, right, if you like bumper cars! F355 is as hardcore as its gets even if it does only feature one model of car.

 

As for PS1 compatibility, well it may have had its faults but bleemcast! pissed all over what PS2 did.

 

DC may have a certain reputation as not being the most reliable of consoles but my launch model is still going strong so no complains here. Oh, and the original PS2 was beset by a host of issues: jamming disc tray, scratched discs, A/V synching issues with DVD playback etc...

 

As has been said several times already in the thread, some are judging what DC had in its brief lifespan against what it took developers many years to achieve on PS2 with its supposedly all-conquering Emotion Engine. Still waiting for those nukes to be launched by the way!

 

PS2 definitely had a use though - http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/ukr/dcstand.htm

[kevincal]

It's not about hardcore. It's about DRIVING PHYSICS and REALISM (car and environment models, sounds, car control etc). Minus of course car damage. I could care less that there is no car damage. All that does is take away from the fun of the game anyway... My favorite F1 game is Formula 1 2001. It sucks so much when I'm doing good in a race, and I barely touch the wall and lose a tire. Makes me want to turn the system off right then and there. Gran Turismo 3 and 4 make you feel like you are driving an actual car, if you are using the logitech steering wheel. Not to mention, GT3 and 4 are absolutely massive games, with tons of replay value. Ferrari F355 is just another typical/shallow arcade type racer... Yawn. The DC analog stick is pretty crappy as well.. I dont think there is a force feedback steering wheel for the dc either.

Edited April 21, 2009 by kevincal

[kevincal]

And of course the bottom line is, there are a bazillion PS2 games. There are only 2-300 DC games... A lot more variety on the PS2. DC is a good system, but not even close to better than the PS2.. I would say it's even with the GameCube. (although I highly prefer the GC for the in-house Nintendo games (miyamoto etc.) (but I know you arcade/fighting game/die hard sega fan drones love your DC ). PS2 and XBOX are a notch above in graphics and amount of games. However DC, PS2, GC & XBOX are in the same league. The first era of the modern systems...

Edited April 21, 2009 by kevincal

[dreamcastrip]

Realism in a Gran Turismo game? So playing bumper cars equates to realism? I loved the first GT game on PS1 and also enjoy playing GT5:Prologue on PS3 but I've never bought into the hype of the series genuinely offering realism. Pretty graphics and absurdly anal ways of tinkering with car setups may fool some into swallowing that "The Real Driving Simulator" tag but the games ultimately are quite arcade-like to play. The irony of Ferrari F355 originating as an arcade machine is striking but as a pure racing experience absolutely nothing touches it. Anyone who can succeed playing it truly possesses some serious racing skills. Unlike the faux-simulation racing of the Gran Turismo series, hitting a wall or crashing into other cars will actually seriously ruin ones chances in a race as it would in real racing. To seriously claim that a Gran Turismo game is more realistic than Ferrrari F355 beggars belief imo.

 

Please view this video review to get a clearer picture -

 

To refer to the game as "... just another typical/shallow arcade type racer" makes me wonder whether you've actually ever played the game. For you to effectively bracket it alongside the likes of Ridge Racer, Daytona etc is so far wide of the mark its untrue.

 

Your opinion of the DC controller's analogue stick is fair enough as you see it. Whilst I wouldn't necessarily claim the controller to be the best out there I personally rate the analogue stick very highly - although my thumb does sometimes slip off it in an energetic bout of gaming.

 

If "... the bottom line is, there are a bazillion PS2 games" then by that logic the world would still be playing VCS or perhaps everyone should just quit all other systems now and get Wii and/or DS. I'll take true innovation and quality over PS2's mountain of Madden/FIFA/Tekken tedium every time, thanks.

 

DC, for the kind of games I generally enjoy, beats PS2 hands down. PS2 of course has a healthy number of top games, of which I've since purchased approximately ten so far to play via my PS3, but its library is overstocked with bland and generic titles the likes of which turned me cold.

 

EDIT: Referring back to bleemcast!, and stressing again it had its limitations, here's a DC/PS2 comparison vid for MGS -

Edited April 21, 2009 by dreamcastrip

[kevincal]

Anybody who's worth a shit at GT3 or 4 doesn't try to bump into other cars... The bumper car people of which you speak are novices. I mean cmon, Ferrari F355 has ONE car lmao... Ya, it looks pretty good, not as realistic as GT3 or 4 though... And GT3 and 4 have HUNDREDS of cars, tons of tracks. F355 is just another SMALL arcade racing game that gets boring in no time. There are so many cars to obtain and different types of races to win in GT3 and 4, it's tons of fun. YA YA, no car damage... big whoop.

 

I'm guessing you havent played GT 3 or 4 with a logitech steering wheel.. have you? It has force feedback, just like a real steering wheel in a real car. It really and truly feels like you are in control of a car. Better than any arcade racer I've ever played by far. Gt 1 and 2 are complete trash compared to 3 and 4 as well..

 

It's obvious you love your DC and I my PS2, so neither of us will win this argument. However it's laughable that you believe F355 is equally as great as GT3 or 4. Gran Turismo 3 was completely mind blowing when it came out in 2001. It still holds up very well today. Nobody had ever seen videogame graphics as realistic nor drivin a videogame car that felt anywhere near as real. When F355 came out on the Dc, a port from an old arcade game? Umm... it got decent scores, but its in no way in the same league as Gt3 or 4.

[kevinski]

Dreamcast is one of my favorite video game consoles of all-time, and it's not simply due to blind nostalgia or anything of that nature. I first bought a Dreamcast after playing Space Channel 5. Sure, I realize that SC5 isn't exactly a AAA title, but it's a fun game with amazing personality, just as Dreamcast, itself, has tons of personality. And that, in a nutshell, is what I love about Dreamcast.

 

It should be noted that Dreamcast - to many - doesn't really fit into a particular hardware generation. Most people don't consider it to be included with the PlayStation 2, GameCube and Xbox generation, yet it was obviously far too advanced to be pitted against the likes of the PlayStation, Saturn and Nintendo 64 in the opinions of others. Dreamcast-exclusive games have aged very well. Honestly, I tend to place Dreamcast within the PlayStation 2, GameCube and Xbox generation. I mean, consider for a moment how many Dreamcast ports or series made it to those other consoles and how well-received those games were on their launches. Sure, they may not have sold in droves, but nobody denied their quality.

 

When Dreamcast was released, its mission wasn't to render the most realistic graphics ever; its mission was to delivery fun games that offered fresh experiences, and the graphics were just the icing on the cake.

 

Dreamcast wasn't about realism; it was about escapism, and that's what game always should've been, in essence. I don't play video games for their realism (and "realism" seems to be blue or brown by today's standards) or lack thereof. I play video games to do things that I couldn't do in real life...or things that're too dangerous for just anyone to do in real life. I don't buy a video game console to play sports games or pretend that I'm playing an instrument. I could do that in real life if I wanted to. And I sure as Hell don't buy a video game console to play DVD's.

 

Dreamcast's demise in most regions marked the death of video games as we once knew them. Today's video game consoles are multimedia centers, often even serving as trojan horses to get various media formats into homes. They're not about love and respect for gaming. They're only intended to be some sort of value to consumers by offering numerous types of functionality in a single pack, aside from Wii, but let's face it: Wii's all about catering to idiots who think that gaming is pretending to do stuff that you could easily do in real life, albeit with poorly-rendered characters.

 

And wow...anyone who claims that PlayStation 2 is better because it has more games is a complete fool. I'd hope to God that a console that was around for several times as long as Dreamcast would have more games. Frankly, quantity isn't an indicator of quality. Furthermore, it's not even as though Dreamcast's full potentially was ever tapped. Newer consoles do one thing, and they do it well: Newer consoles make developers inefficient and lazy. Now, processing power is wasted on rendering background details that, to put it bluntly, could be rendered in far more efficient manners. Polygon builds are growing, yet it's not as though models become exponentially more impressive.

 

Simply put, Dreamcast is and always will be an amazing console. It's much better than PlayStation 2, in my opinion. It has tons of personality, and it delivers plenty of entertaining. It didn't have its chance to really shine, since Sega pulled the plug on it far too early.

[kevincal]

It's totally foolish to claim that somehow the PS2 has a LESS amount of good and great games than the Dreamcast! The DC has plenty of trash games just as the PS2 does. I will give that the DC probably has a better RATIO of good to bad games, however the PS2 still has a BOATLOAD more quality titles than the DC... Again, the PS2 has well over 1000 games, the DC has around 300..

 

Even if 700 of the PS2 games are crap, and 300 good, that would mean every single one of the 300 DC games would have to be good to match it, AAAND that's just not happening LOL. Let's say half the DC library are good games, which is about average for any system, half the games good, half not. And see how I'm even cheating for the DC, by saying only a few hundred PS2 games are good out of over 1000... That would mean the PS2 still has DOUBLE the amount of good games than the DC.. 300 to 150! This is a perfectly fair example of why you Dreamcast FANBOYS are having delusions of grandeur! Seriously, you DC fanboys are even more delusional than us Jaguar fans. I mean hell, even Sonic Adventure, which should have been the very best DC game, isn't very good... Pretty yes, but boring as hell to play with a screwed camera. It's probably one of the major reasons the DC didn't do better than it did. A lot of people were let down by this one game, myself included. I was a diehard Sonic fan on the Genesis. Mario 64 on the N64 kills Sonic Adventure. Not graphics, but every other way including the most important,, FUN FACTOR.

Edited April 21, 2009 by kevincal

[kevincal]

It's one thing to say you LIKE the DC more than the PS2, it's a whole 'nothing thing to say the Dreamcast is BETTER than the PS2!!! For instance, I'm a big Jaguar fan. Yet I realize the number of good games on the system is limited.. I like the Jaguar more than many systems that have a lot more good games than the Jag, and I will be the first to admit those systems are better than the Jag because they have more good games. Back when I was a TEENAGER, I was blinded a bit by fanoboyism because I didn't know any better. Now that I've owned nearly every system from every manufacturer, along with tons of games, I'm not partial to any one company. I care about fun games, that's it. I'm just calling it like it is.

 

I have owned a PS2 and probably about 75 different games, and I've owned a Dreamcast & about 35 DC games... Most of the really good ones. And I've read up on both systems games A LOT. Reviews, etc. Basically I owned most of the "must have" games for both systems..

Edited April 21, 2009 by kevincal

[Artlover]

It's not about hardcore. It's about DRIVING PHYSICS and REALISM (car and environment models, sounds, car control etc).

Oh, so you're talking Forza on the Xbox then.

 

And of course the bottom line is, there are a bazillion PS2 games. There are only 2-300 DC games... A lot more variety on the PS2.

Why do you keep bringing up this worthless point. OF COURSE it has more games, 9 years later and it's still being supported. It wasn't killed just a couple of years out of the gate. This doesn't have anything to do with the intended discussion.

[kevincal]

I haven't played Forza, but I've heard good things. Still, I've read a lot of reviews and opinions on both games, Gran Turismo 3 and 4 are still prefered to Forza overall...

 

I bring up the amount of games because the title of this topic is "Dreamcast was better than the PS2". In my mind, this is a totally ridiculous statement for the simple fact that the PS2 has SO MANY more games than the Dreamcast. YA YA, there is a lot of shit, but as I just layed out, the PS2 still has many more good games than the DC. So how in the hell is the DC a better system when it has half as many good games, and a lot less variety than the PS2? A lot of you are just butt-hurt toward the PS2 because it basically send the DC and Sega packing! Blame the software developers for that! They decided to stop making games for the DC and turn their attention to the PS2. Same thing happened with the Jag..

 

It's like this. Ayrton Senna was killed well before his career was over. He won what... 3 championships. Michael Schumacher had a nice long career and won 7 championships. Would you be so naive to say Senna was better!? We have NO IDEA if that would be true or not, had he survived. Michael Schumacher may just have well beat him if he were still alive. You DC fanoboys can't use the excuse that since the DC died an early death, that somehow that gives it an edge over a system that lived a full life.. The DC did well in its short life. It has great graphics, it's a good system. It's just not better than the PS2.

[kevinski]

The DC had unique rendering engine (PowerVR) and it had amazing Anti Aliasing methods. Many early DC games did look smoother than the PS2 counterparts. But the PS2 had much more horsepower. Kevincal is correct. GT4 on the PS2 is something the DC could never come close to and it can run in 720/1080 HD resolution. Something the DC isn't even capable of at all. I still prefer the DC and its games often do have a unique look and feel. But there is no point in arguing over the power of the PS2.

 

Wrong. PlayStation 2 doesn't output 720p or 1080p. Hell, 95% of the time, PlayStation 3 doesn't even render in 1080p.

 

I bring up the amount of games because the title of this topic is "Dreamcast was better than the PS2". In my mind, this is a totally ridiculous statement for the simple fact that the PS2 has SO MANY more games than the Dreamcast. YA YA, there is a lot of shit, but as I just layed out, the PS2 still has many more good games than the DC. So how in the hell is the DC a better system when it has half as many good games, and a lot less variety than the PS2? A lot of you are just butt-hurt toward the PS2 because it basically send the DC and Sega packing! Blame the software developers for that! They decided to stop making games for the DC and turn their attention to the PS2. Same thing happened with the Jag..

 

You know, faulting a console for having fewer games than a console that was "alive" for a much longer time is ridiculous. And, as you already admitted, there's a very good chance than - in terms of a ratio - Dreamcast's game library is of higher quality. Still, you decide to resort to this narrow-minded logic that PlayStation 2 is superior because it has more games? Given how short Dreamcast was around in the U.S., it still managed to have 248 commercial games released. Not too shabby.

 

And PlayStation 2's victory over Dreamcast had nothing to do with quality. Its launch games were complete ass. People bought it because it happened to have the word "PlayStation" in its name, followed by the number 2, nothing more. Oh, and - in Japan - it was heralded for its DVD playback. Woo hoo. I admit that PlayStation 2 has some great games, but I still find Dreamcast to have more games that I prefer to play. It's simply a matter of taste. I like arcade-style games, and Dreamcast has plenty to offer.

[DracIsBack]

DC is a good system, but not even close to better than the PS2

 

Well, you - in your personal subjective opinion - think that. You do raise interesting points though. I like the PS2. I like the Dreamcast. These arguements are silly, anyway.

 

PS2 and XBOX are a notch above in graphics and amount of games.

 

Number of games, sure. The Dreamcast was killed off in two years on the market. As for graphics, that's a very small notch in the grand scheme of things.

 

However DC, PS2, GC & XBOX are in the same league. The first era of the modern systems...

 

And also didn't have the benefit of living for seven years as developers tried to push more and more out of it. That's why the argument of "early Dreamcast games were better looking than early PS2 titles but look at later PS2 titles and how much better they are".

 

The Dreamcast was killed prematurely. There weren't seventh generation Dreamcast games from big houses. There wasn't a Dreamcast pusher like - say Resident Evil 4 etc.

Edited April 21, 2009 by DracIsBack

[Artlover]

I guess the Atari 2600 is better then the DC too because it also has more games?

[Artlover]

..wtf..

Edited April 21, 2009 by Artlover

[moycon]

Dreamcast was one of my favorite consoles. Easily in my list of top 5.

I thought it was better and I got more use out of it than my PS2. I literally was shocked when it was announced the Dreamcast was no longer going to be supported. I thought for sure it could hang, especially after I received my PS2 (Pre-ordered and got it on day one)

[AtticGamer]

No way in my opinion. Regardless of lifespan, I don't consider the DC superior to the PS2.

 

It hasn't as many good games, the controller is horrible, it doesn't support DVD (for bigger games) and I prefer domestic games than DC's arcade games (maybe Sega still thought arcade ports were relevant).

 

Even if it lived longer, it wouldn't have better graphics and its library would be like the GC's or XBox's.

 

I bought a DC recently and frankly it's overrated, not to say anything more inflammatory.

[Artlover]

Even if it lived longer, it wouldn't have better graphics

And you know this how?

 

PS2 games in 2002 wern't nothing to brag about and a far cry worse then compared to PS2 games now.

 

Lets pretend history went a bit different, knowing what we know now. PS2 was killed off after only a couple of years and we come along and say the best looking game at 'that' time is the best it could have ever done. - See how incredibly stupid such a remark is.

[AtticGamer]

The PS2 is technically more powerful in almost every way, with video ram being inferior and the lack of anti aliasing. PS2 can produce sharper models and backgrounds as well as larger playfields thanks to higher polygon count.

 

DC would hardly produce GT3, and that was an early title, as was Resident Evil on the Gamecube for example.

Edited April 21, 2009 by AtticGamer

[MN12BIRD]

The DC had unique rendering engine (PowerVR) and it had amazing Anti Aliasing methods. Many early DC games did look smoother than the PS2 counterparts. But the PS2 had much more horsepower. Kevincal is correct. GT4 on the PS2 is something the DC could never come close to and it can run in 720/1080 HD resolution. Something the DC isn't even capable of at all. I still prefer the DC and its games often do have a unique look and feel. But there is no point in arguing over the power of the PS2.

 

Wrong. PlayStation 2 doesn't output 720p or 1080p. Hell, 95% of the time, PlayStation 3 doesn't even render in 1080p.

 

 

Oh sorry 1080i... gezz point is it can run in HD and the DC can't.

[kevinski]

Oh sorry 1080i... gezz point is it can run in HD and the DC can't.

 

While I realize that PlayStation 2 can do this, how many games actually utilize it? I'm not doubting you. I'm really just curious.

[MN12BIRD]

I have no idea what other games do HD as I don't even own a PS2. Like I said I do prefer the DC but GT4 was the best racing game on any console of the time. I simply love that game! Anyway, I do know its a rare option but GT4 does run in 1080 and looks amazing. I think there may have been a few other games to do 1080i but I'm not sure. Same goes with the original X-Box. It was capable of 1080i but only a handful of games used the option.

[kevinski]

I have no idea what other games do HD as I don't even own a PS2. Like I said I do prefer the DC but GT4 was the best racing game on any console of the time. I simply love that game! Anyway, I do know its a rare option but GT4 does run in 1080 and looks amazing. I think there may have been a few other games to do 1080i but I'm not sure. Same goes with the original X-Box. It was capable of 1080i but only a handful of games used the option.

 

I seem to notice that the more likely games to run at 1080p in the current console generation are sports games and racing games. Admittedly, the Gran Turismo games look great, but GT4 does raise the question as to why there aren't very many games on PlayStation 2 that utilizing 1080i mode. In either case, though, one other thing to bear in mind is that Dreamcast was built with cost in mind, and HD just hadn't caught on to the point where it was relevant at that point. Dreamcast had VGA output. How many other consoles had that prior to Dreamcast? Really, faulting a console for not measuring up to certain standards that consoles released AFTER them happened to adhere to just isn't fair.

 

Furthermore, resolution isn't everything. I mean, Saturn can output games at higher resolutions than Dreamcast can, yet you don't hear too many people claiming that Saturn games look better because of it. (And I realize that most games don't utilizing Saturn's higher resolutions. It was merely an example.)

[dreamcastrip]

How much of a difference in quality is there between Dreamcast's 480p for nearly all of its games and PS2's 1080i for a small handful of its games? If PS2 did 1080p then I'm well aware of what the difference would be but as it doesn't I'd be interested to know? As 720p whoops 1080i for moving images then would the difference between 480p (referred to as EDTV, I believe) and 1080i be really something to shout about?

 

Even if the difference is significant I'd still rather own a console that shows nearly all its best games in 480p as opposed to one which shows only a handful of games at a higher quality.

 

On a related point, wouldn't seeing PS2 games in 1080i merely serve to highlight the console's lack of anti-aliasing even further by emphasising those jaggies? Also, given the drab colour palettes seen in so many PS2 games as a result of its piss poor amount of video RAM I wouldn't have thought seeing such blandness in HD would be all that special anyway. Oh, and that's if one truly classes interlaced mode as being "proper" HD anyway, unless you only plan on viewing static images. I guess a game of Myst would truly rock in PS2's "HD" mode!

Edited April 22, 2009 by dreamcastrip