Dreamcast was better than the PS2

[AtticGamer]

1080i is better than 480p.

 

PS2 can produce better graphics than Dreamcast, even at lower resolutions (PS2 games look great upscaled).

 

As for dull colors, which I've never noticed, games can have lower contrast than others and brightness, colour and contrast can be adjusted on the TV you know.

 

Point is, PS2 look better than DC, plain.

 

So DC fanboys think I'm evil because I think a multimedia center is better than a true console made for gamers, big deal, I feel great at the dark side.

[kevinski]

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!

 

I agree. Really, I'll take 480p over 1080i any day. Progressive scan is so much better for moving images, and even 1080i is prone to showing the flaws of an interlaced image. Furthermore, given that 540 horizontal rows are processed with each pass in 1080i as compared to 480p's 480, I really don't see how it's worth bragging about PlayStation 2's "HD" capabilities. It's sixty extra rows of vertical resolution per pass on a few games. Woo hoo.

 

Besides, 480p looks amazing on Dreamcast, especially though a VGA adapter.

 

1080i is better than 480p.

 

PS2 can produce better graphics than Dreamcast, even at lower resolutions (PS2 games look great upscaled).

 

As for dull colors, which I've never noticed, games can have lower contrast than others and brightness, colour and contrast can be adjusted on the TV you know.

 

Point is, PS2 look better than DC, plain.

 

So DC fanboys think I'm evil because I think a multimedia center is better than a true console made for gamers, big deal, I feel great at the dark side.

 

Now, why should anyone have to adjust the brightness, color and contrast on their television for ONE CONSOLE whenever everything else looks fine? That's about as bad as a game that has a built-in brightness test, but forces you to make adjustments on your television, rather than in-game.

[AtticGamer]

You talk as if all PS2 games are like that, I've never noticed it myself and the contrast and colour intensity look the same to me, just don't compare Skies of Arcadia with Silent Hill 2.

 

And even if I had to change the TV settings for one console, I would, it's not a hassle or anything.

Edited April 23, 2009 by AtticGamer

[kevinski]

You talk as if all PS2 games are like that, I've never noticed it myself and the contrast and colour intensity look the same to me, just don't compare Skies of Arcadia with Silent Hill 2.

 

And even if I had to change the TV settings for one console, I would, it's not a hassle or anything.

 

I never directly stated that a lot of PlayStation 2 games are lacking in terms of color. I was responding to your comment about compensating for the drabness of in-game colors by adjusting your television. But yeah, I'll now go on record by saying that there are a lot of PlayStation 2 games with drab colors. XD

 

That isn't to say that they aren't fun. I mean, Trapt is pretty awesome, despite its uninspired graphics. It's just that Dreamcast was always so refreshing with all of the color that was in the majority of its games. Even Shenmue, a game that attempted to take a more realistic approach, was very colorful. I prefer the bright visuals of games like Crazy Taxi and Skies of Arcadia, though.

[Artlover]

You talk as if all PS2 games are like that, I've never noticed it myself and the contrast and colour intensity look the same to me, just don't compare Skies of Arcadia with Silent Hill 2.

You want to notice it. Compare GTA:SA on the PS2 vs the Xbox.

[AtticGamer]

Xbox is much more powerful than PS2.

 

We're talking about DC vs PS2 here.

 

And btw, the graphical difference is minimal in GTA SA, it's a port I think so not a very good example.

 

RE4 would be better suited if you want to show the PS2's limitations against a superior system on the hardware front.

[kevinski]

Xbox is much more powerful than PS2.

 

We're talking about DC vs PS2 here.

 

And btw, the graphical difference is minimal in GTA SA, it's a port I think so not a very good example.

 

RE4 would be better suited if you want to show the PS2's limitations against a superior system on the hardware front.

 

But RE4 is a port, as well. In either case, the best means of comparing a console's color palette is through ports, because they're ultimately going to be THE SAME GAME.

[moycon]

I got overall more enjoyment out of the games I played on the DC when compared to games I played on PS2. The DC wasn't around long and had a bunch of games that linger on in my memory as being KICK ASS to this day. I can't say the same about the PS2's early memories. In fact the first year I had the PS2 there wasn't hardly any games worth mentioning released. I think Time Splitters was the creme de la creme of the library for a long long time.

 

It sure would have been nice if the DC had hung around another year or two. Regardless that some people might think the games couldn't have gotten better. (Although I do know that would be hard to imagine) history has shown us via every console ever released since the 70's, that way of thinking is just silly.

[Artlover]

And btw, the graphical difference is minimal in GTA SA,

Ok then....

 

 

Can you see the difference beteen those two images?

[roland p]

1080i is better than 480p.

Are 1080i ps2 games really rendered in 1080i? It's really difficult to render interlaced images. The rendering can't afford to mis a field. Unless they went the easy way and rendered 1080p images, and converted them to 1080i. But maybe they just rendered 480p images and upconverted them to 1080i.

[tisaperfectdayelise]

I found the Dreamcast experience to be much more enjoyable than PS2. In that short time when Dreamcast was still viable, and PS2 was still new, I found that buying a Dreamcast game was almost always a sure-thing...and that there was a lot of garbage for PS2.

 

I'm not sure if anybody would agree with me, but Dreamcast games, in general, had this weird uniqueness to them that made them (and the system) special. I also loved the controller, aesthetically and ergonomically; and (for many of the games) thought that it was well-utilized...

 

I tend to lean more toward the obscure, however....so, I'm probably unfairly biased....

[tisaperfectdayelise]

And btw, the graphical difference is minimal in GTA SA,

Ok then....

 

 

Can you see the difference beteen those two images?

 

Brilliant!!

[DracIsBack]

Xbox is much more powerful than PS2.

 

My god, you like to overstate things. In the grand scheme of things, it's slightly newer and slightly better.

 

I swear, the way some of you tell the story, the difference between the Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube and XBox is like the difference between a Fairchild and the PS3.

 

They're all of the same generation, each with strengths and weaknesses but all in the same ballpark of each other.

Edited April 23, 2009 by DracIsBack

[kevinski]

My god, you like to overstate things. In the grand scheme of things, it's slightly newer and slightly better.

 

I swear, the way some of you tell the story, the difference between the Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube and XBox is like the difference between a Fairchild and the PS3.

 

They're all of the same generation, each with strengths and weaknesses but all in the same ballpark of each other.

 

Actually, there's a significant performance gap between PlayStation 2 and Xbox. Honestly, I'd go so far as to say that Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 are comparable to one another, while GameCube and Xbox are comparable to one another. GameCube and Xbox both have vastly superior texturing capabilities, and both almost consistently showed their superiority to PlayStation 2. While PlayStation 2 was able to keep up with them, it's obvious that it was a vastly inferior console. PlayStation 2 had graphical issues right out of the gate in Japan, and the software had to compensate for it. PlayStation 2 probably could've gone even further than it has up to this point, but with valuable resources tied up to fix the texture filtering on the console, it's hard to say just how much better it could've been.

 

In either case, this is more of a Dreamcast versus PlayStation 2 debate, and I stand behind the fact that Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 are very much comparable in terms of power. PlayStation 2 just had the luxury of sticking around longer.

[dreamcastrip]

I found the Dreamcast experience to be much more enjoyable than PS2. In that short time when Dreamcast was still viable, and PS2 was still new, I found that buying a Dreamcast game was almost always a sure-thing...and that there was a lot of garbage for PS2.

 

I'm not sure if anybody would agree with me, but Dreamcast games, in general, had this weird uniqueness to them that made them (and the system) special.

I totally identify with you on that point. I fondly recall the all too short time when Dreamcast scaled the heights. Breaking the seal on and playing a new game felt like an event in itself at times as the level of originality/innovativeness and sheer fun of its top titles set it apart. That's not coming from a then existing Sega fanboy either as it was the first Sega system I'd bought at that point. I already owned a PlayStation at the time just to be clear that I wasn't a Sony-hater at the time.

 

The closest I can come up with to describe this is that the very best Dreamcast titles seemed to have "soul". When a bought a PlayStation game at the time the experience felt just like acquiring another consumer product. Purchasing a top Dreamcast game felt more like being in possession of a carefully sculpted piece of art, if that doesn't sound a little over the top.

 

Having since learned more of the operations of Sega's various gaming departments at the time it all kinda makes sense as they were seemingly given free reign to go crazy with their ideas (e.g. Seaman, Samba de Amigo, Rez, Jet Set Radio, Shenmue, Chu Chu Rocket, Segagaga, The Typing of the Dead) and the level of interdepartmental competition was incredibly intense. Commercial factors, focus group opinion, market research data all seemed to matter little as long as the guys making the games felt they were fun and progressive.

 

One hell of a lot more in the video games industry died following the demise of Sega as a hardware manufacturer. The radical restructuring within Sega at the time, partly in an attempt to stem the financial losses, resulted in a company that was never quite the same again.

[kevincal]

Playstation 2 VASTLY INFERIOR to the GAMECUBE!?

 

Um, no. Dreamcast and GameCube are more comparable to each other whereas PS2 and XBOX are more comparable to each other... They aren't that far apart though. They all produce great looking 2d and 3d games...

 

Besides, all one has to do is look at WORLDWIDE SALES FIGURES to see what people REALLY think of the systems ON AVERAGE.

Edited April 23, 2009 by kevincal

[DracIsBack]

Um, no. Dreamcast and GameCube are more comparable to each other whereas PS2 and XBOX are more comparable to each other...

 

In what ways? This seems kind of "open ended".

 

From a purely graphical perpsective, the Cube had the edge over the PS2 (it was newer). Play a groundbreaking game like Resident Evil 4 on each and you see which has the edge quite quickly.

 

From a game library perspective? I'd go with the PS2 myself, though I think there is some drastic revisionist history where the Cube is concerned in the world. Lots of good games on that machine too and lots of big titles made it to all three.

 

 

Besides, all one has to do is look at WORLDWIDE SALES FIGURES to see what people REALLY think of the systems ON AVERAGE.

 

Lots of people bought New Kids on the Block and Spice Girls albums too ...

[DracIsBack]

Actually, there's a significant performance gap between PlayStation 2 and Xbox.

 

Sorry, just didn't see it. I had XBox, thought it was cool. Thought it was a bit of a step up from the other consoles but didn't find it technically revolutionary. I thought it was obvious they were all from the same generation. Guess we have different views.

 

vastly superior texturing capabilities ...vastly inferior console

 

Again, I think you guys are really, really, really overstating things.

[dreamcastrip]

Playstation 2 VASTLY INFERIOR to the GAMECUBE!?

 

Um, no. Dreamcast and GameCube are more comparable to each other whereas PS2 and XBOX are more comparable to each other... They aren't that far apart though. They all produce great looking 2d and 3d games...

 

Besides, all one has to do is look at WORLDWIDE SALES FIGURES to see what people REALLY think of the systems ON AVERAGE.

Do a little research on the REAL polygon pushing power of these consoles, i.e. with all commonly used graphical effects utilised and you'll understand things a little more.

 

GameCube was indeed more powerful than PS2. Sony pushed their BS claims of how many polygons PS2 could push but were later forced to admit the figures were for flat non-textured polygons. Add in the typical graphical effects used in most games and that figure predictably came tumbling down. Coupled with the difficulties of effectively exploiting the Emotion Engine and a lack of video RAM, PS2 seemed somewhat disappointing relative to the pre-launch hype. No ragging, just fact.

 

You earlier referred to the number of games published on PS2 as a misguided justification for its supposed superiority. You're now using sales figures to somehow justify its supposed superiority. I'm struggling to take this seriously anymore as by your logic NES or PS1 are better than Xbox 360 and PS3 and in the current-gen Wii must therefore be the best console available...

Edited April 23, 2009 by dreamcastrip

[kevinski]

Having since learned more of the operations of Sega's various gaming departments at the time it all kinda makes sense as they were seemingly given free reign to go crazy with their ideas (e.g. Seaman, Samba de Amigo, Rez, Jet Set Radio, Shenmue, Chu Chu Rocket, Segagaga, The Typing of the Dead) and the level of interdepartmental competition was incredibly intense. Commercial factors, focus group opinion, market research data all seemed to matter little as long as the guys making the games felt they were fun and progressive.

 

One hell of a lot more in the video games industry died following the demise of Sega as a hardware manufacturer. The radical restructuring within Sega at the time, partly in an attempt to stem the financial losses, resulted in a company that was never quite the same again.

 

I think that it was that freedom that made the Sega of yesteryear something really special. Nowadays, a new Sega release is generally more likely to earn little more than disgust out of me, rather than the usual fanfare. Sega's "soul" was always in hardware, so it's not terribly surprising that newer Sega games are somewhat lacking in personality for the most part.

 

Playstation 2 VASTLY INFERIOR to the GAMECUBE!?

 

Um, no. Dreamcast and GameCube are more comparable to each other whereas PS2 and XBOX are more comparable to each other... They aren't that far apart though. They all produce great looking 2d and 3d games...

 

Besides, all one has to do is look at WORLDWIDE SALES FIGURES to see what people REALLY think of the systems ON AVERAGE.

 

I'd like to take a moment to ask you if you even know what a GameCube or an Xbox really is. Sure, there are PlayStation 2 games that look incredible, but they look incredible because they're conveying environments and situations that aren't terribly demanding with respect to the hardware. PlayStation 2 simply can't compete with GameCube or Xbox (and, at times, with Dreamcast) in terms of texture quality. GameCube can actually handle more layers of textures than Xbox, but Xbox can still often come out on top, simply because - overall - its specifications are still significantly higher than those of GameCube. And how about DOOM 3 for Xbox? I'm curious: Do you think that PlayStation 2 could pull that off? I think not. You know, there've been games released on Dreamcast that were cancelled for PlayStation 2 due to technical limitations. And GameCube/Xbox games that were later ported to PlayStation 2 were obviously downgraded. How about RE4? Or Splinter Cell? XD

 

And sales speak for how good something is? Wii Fit, anyone? How about Wii Play? Nintendogs? Do note that those three "games" sold much better than ANYTHING on PlayStation 2. Yeah, that pretty much decimates your argument right there. I'd hope to God that further explanation isn't necessary.

[kevincal]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm using sales figures and number of games to compare systems IN THE SAME FREAKING GENERATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You Dreamcast fanboys need to take your shit somewhere else. It's getting really annoying. Who the hell do you think knows these systems better than any? Hmm, maybe the SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. And hmm, nearly all of them chose to develope for the PLAYSTATION 2 instead of the dc... Even though the DC was selling fine and had a good installed base. So are you going to call all of them stupid too? Do they know they hardware specifications more than your Dreamcast fanboy brains? YES.. These systems are very technical, and only extremely knowledgeable coders really know which is better than the other. I have seen hundred of games on all of these systems. THE BEST GAMES ON THE PS2 AND XBOX ARE BETTER AND LOOK BETTER THAN THE BEST GAMES ON THE DC AND GAMECUBE. This is FACT! NOT TO MENTION, the PS2 and XBOX have a SHITLOAD more games, good games, variety YOU NAME IT than the DC and GAMECUBE. You dc fanboys are grasping at straws. Your love for the DC system has completed blinded you from reality.

 

And I LIKE the Dreamcast and Gamecube! I'm just annoyed with you DC fanboys claiming the DC is the best thing since sliced bread. Infact I like the DC and Gamecube more than the XBOX, not because they are better systems, only because I prefer the type of games on those systems to the XBOX's library!

Edited April 23, 2009 by kevincal

[kevinski]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm using sales figures and number of games to compare systems IN THE SAME FREAKING GENERATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh, so the rules have changed since PlayStation 2 suddenly didn't look so hot? Sorry, but you're missing my point. The games that I listed sold well, yet they barely even qualify as games. That should be indicative as to how much sales mean. Okami sold like complete crap, yet it was an awesome game. Making sense yet?

[Artlover]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm using sales figures and number of games to compare systems IN THE SAME FREAKING GENERATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You Dreamcast fanboys need to take your shit somewhere else. It's getting really annoying. Who the hell do you think knows these systems better than any? Hmm, maybe the SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. And hmm, nearly all of them chose to develope for the PLAYSTATION 2 instead of the dc...

BECAUSE THE DC WAS KILLED OFF BY SEGA AFTER ONLY TWO YEARS.

 

What part of that concept don't you f'in understand?

 

You Dreamcast fanboys need to take your shit somewhere else. It's getting really annoying.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you PS2 fanboys.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Artlover

[kevincal]

AND WHY WAS THE DC KILLED OFF?! BECAUSE THE FREAKING DEVELOPERS AND PUBLISHERS KNEW BETTER TECHNOLOGY WAS COMING SOON IN THE PS2 & XBOX.. DUH!

 

And I'm far from a PS2 fanboy. Call me a REALISM fanboy, as I live in the real world, you guys live in Sega land! Trying to argue the DC is somehow better than the PS2 is like saying American cars are better/more reliable than Japanese cars.. BULLSHIT!

Edited April 23, 2009 by kevincal

[kevinski]

You Dreamcast fanboys need to take your shit somewhere else. It's getting really annoying.

 

The annoying part in this is how easy you're making it.

 

Who the hell do you think knows these systems better than any? Hmm, maybe the SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. And hmm, nearly all of them chose to develope for the PLAYSTATION 2 instead of the dc... Even though the DC was selling fine and had a good installed base. So are you going to call all of them stupid too?

 

How about EA? Ring a bell? They gave Dreamcast the finger because they were whiny douches who didn't want to deal with what actually ended up as one of the easiest development platforms in the history of video games. They chose to develop for PlayStation 2 because all of the mindless idiots who bought a PlayStation 2 on launch day, despite the horrible software lineup. People blindly follow Sony because they tend to make consoles that have the name "PlayStation" in their titles. They care nothing about quality. Think of what could've been done with Saturn had the vast majority of developers not been a bunch of lazy asses.

 

I have seen hundred of games on all of these systems. THE BEST GAMES ON THE PS2 AND XBOX ARE BETTER AND LOOK BETTER THAN THE BEST GAMES ON THE DC AND GAMECUBE. This is FACT! NOT TO MENTION, the PS2 and XBOX have a SHITLOAD more games, good games, variety YOU NAME IT than the DC and GAMECUBE. You dc fanboys are grasping at straws. Your love for the DC system has completed blinded you from reality.

 

If you're really that blind to the capabilities of GameCube, then I think that you should try more of its games. How about Splinter Cell on PlayStation 2 and GameCube. Yes, compared to the Xbox version, the GameCube version took a bit of a hit. But the PlayStation 2 version? XD