Dreamcast was better than the PS2

[gamerz]

I hope you two are having fun getting your blood pressure up over this.

[kevinski]

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!

 

Realism fanboy? Only in that you probably play Madden all day instead of playing video games for escapism. Really, Dreamcast was intelligently designed, whereas PlayStation 2 was an absolute mess. Yes, Sony was great about throwing out dev kits that cleaned up said mess, but - again - this was at the expense of the console always having to clean up its flaws in real-time, diminishing its chances at ever actually reaching its full potential.

[kevinski]

I hope you two are having fun getting your blood pressure up over this.

 

Hahahaha...I'm completely calm. Him, on the other hand... XD

[kevincal]

Grasping at straws still I see. I don't give 2 shits about Madden. You Sega fanboys call the PS2 a mess because some of the early games had some barely noticeable JAGGIES HAHA. Gimme a freaking break.

 

Hey, I'm a big Jaguar fan (I'm a big fan off almost all systems), but I'm not stupid enough to sit around and falsely proclaim it to be better than, let's say the Saturn...

 

Just to remind you, I'm not a LOPSIDED fanboy of ANY system or company! I own lots of systems and games, and enjoy them all fairly equally. However I know which systems produce better graphics and have a bigger variety of good games than the other...

 

"Dreamcast was better than the PS2" is simply a FALSE statement and nothing else. It's an OPINION of a DC fanboy. No facts back up the statement.

Edited April 23, 2009 by kevincal

[kevinski]

You Sega fanboys call the PS2 a mess because some of the early games had some barely noticeable JAGGIES HAHA. Gimme a freaking break.

 

Something just flew out the window. I think it might've been your credibility.

 

Just to remind you, I'm not a LOPSIDED fanboy of ANY system or company! I own lots of systems and games, and enjoy them all fairly equally. However I know which systems produce better graphics and have a bigger variety of good games than the other...

 

Your problem is that you fail to take certain things into consideration. Consider the first two years of PlayStation 2's life and tell me without outright lying that it had more good games than Dreamcast did in its first two years. You can't. It's not a matter of fanboyism, which, by the way, despite you seemingly having to point out the fact that you're not biased for some reason.

 

You're bringing no constructive points to this argument. Instead, I feel that I'm shooting down the same arguments again and again and again. I've seen

before. Unless you come up with a better argument, then I'm afraid that I'll never agree with you.

[kevincal]

I'm talking about the OVERALL PICTURE! You DC fanboys are stuck in the year 2000!

Edited April 23, 2009 by kevincal

[dreamcastrip]

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!

Er... no, actually. Many developers switched to PS2 simply to chase the $$$ as PS2 was selling so well relative to DC. Dreamcast was designed from the outset to be very straightforward to code for and, again, do a little research and you'll discover this. There were masses of interviews/articles featuring coders raging at Sony for making PS2 such a nightmare to code at the time. Many of them resented being forced into making games for PS2. Publishers releasing games for PS2 instead of DC had little or nothing to do with each console's technological ability.

 

DC was killed off by Sega to save the company from total collapse. Yes, that may well have in part been caused by a relative lack of third-party support but the reason for that lack of support had little to do with technology. It had everything to do with making greater profits on a system that was always going to succeed regardless of how good it was or not simply because of the strength of the PlayStation brand. For evidence of this please recall the run-up to PS3's launch where a senior Sony executive, forget the name although it may have been Ken Kutaragi, went on record stating PS3 would sell huge numbers off the bat regardless of price simply because it had the name PlayStation on the box.

 

Oh, and a strategy of attempting to debate any issue by resorting to "(topic being debated)... is like saying that... (insert random and unrelated new topic)" is generally a sign of desperation in any discussion outside of the schoolyard. Gratz on insulting the hard work and efforts of your country's auto industry workers in this time of great economic uncertainty too.

[kevinski]

I'm talking about the OVERALL PICTURE! You DC fanboys are stuck in the year 2000!

 

Actually, wouldn't Dreamcast fanboys technically be stuck in the years 1999-2002? And I have no problem with admitting that the aforementioned years were a much better time for gaming, so I honestly wouldn't mind being stuck in that particular time period.

[kevinski]

Gratz on insulting the hard work and efforts of your country's auto industry workers in this time of great economic uncertainty too.

 

Well, to be fair, I do agree with kevincal on that point. I drive a Nissan, and it's much better than my Dodge ever was. XD

[AtticGamer]

PS2 is better than Dreamcast in every aspect: graphics, controller, game library and DVD support. Saying DC was better at PS2's launch or that DC had a better 1-2 first years is utterly irrelevant, it's like saying Amiga and Mega Drive were better than SNES because they were better in the short term. A slow start of a console that brought the demise of a console with more games is worse, right.

 

Just because we don't glorify the Dreamcast, it doesn't mean we are Sony zealots that only play GTA, Fifa and Madden. I'm based on reality, a console with superior horsepower and a bigger library of games with more good titles than an euthanized console inferior in practically everyway is better.

 

You DC fans can continue to be alternative, with different views and a sense of being part of an underdog cult. Fine, I'll return to my futile and superficial gaming experience.

[dreamcastrip]

PS2 is better than Dreamcast in every aspect: graphics, controller, game library and DVD support. Saying DC was better at PS2's launch or that DC had a better 1-2 first years is utterly irrelevant, it's like saying Amiga and Mega Drive were better than SNES because they were better in the short term. A slow start of a console that brought the demise of a console with more games is worse, right.

 

Just because we don't glorify the Dreamcast, it doesn't mean we are Sony zealots that only play GTA, Fifa and Madden. I'm based on reality, a console with superior horsepower and a bigger library of games with more good titles than an euthanized console inferior in practically everyway is better.

 

You DC fans can continue to be alternative, with different views and a sense of being part of an underdog cult. Fine, I'll return to my futile and superficial gaming experience.

Fair enough as we're seemingly never going to agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mega Drive/Genesis was definitely better than SNES though!

[DracIsBack]

It's astonishing how this thread has really brought out the human tendency in forums to express personal, subjective opinions as though they are facts.

[DracIsBack]

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

 

You're taking this way too personally. It's just a thread. Kind of a dumb one actually, ripe to start flame wars. And you're feeding right into the flames.

 

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!

 

No, it's a personal, subjective OPINION ... yours. You personally like the games better and you personally think the games look better.

 

And frankly, while I have lots of respect for the PS2, arguing that it has better graphics than the GameCube (which is newer technology than the PS2) is ripe to open up real flame wars. Unless you want to explain why Resident Evil 4 (widely considered one of the best looking games in the last generation) had to be pared down graphically on PS2 from the GameCube version and is still considered a great technical achievement.

Edited April 23, 2009 by DracIsBack

[atarian63]

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!

Actually these days, they are, or at least as good...

[atarian63]

Gratz on insulting the hard work and efforts of your country's auto industry workers in this time of great economic uncertainty too.

 

Well, to be fair, I do agree with kevincal on that point. I drive a Nissan, and it's much better than my Dodge ever was. XD

Wow, my Dodge was so much better than my wifes Honda. Oh sorry, we are talking about DC VS PS2 here.

So don't most of us here own both and probably for different reasons. Mostly as we all wanted to be able to play the latest games. DC was a breakthru system in graphics and sound (I paid full boat for a 6 months early japanese one with HOD2). I was very happy with it. When ps2 was coming out and DC ending there wasn't much choice, and then the Cube came along and so on and so on. There are many title on ps2 I would have preferred to play on DC but it never got that far. I do like the DC controller better but PS2 is workable as well.

My point is just own them all and appreciate what you like. (except xbox,hate that damn thing and I have a pc anyway)

[Artlover]

Trying to argue the DC is somehow better than the PS2 is like saying American cars are better/more reliable than Japanese cars.. BULLSHIT!

Actually these days, they are, or at least as good...

Only because Japanese cars got worse.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Artlover

[kevinski]

PS2 is better than Dreamcast in every aspect: graphics, controller, game library and DVD support. Saying DC was better at PS2's launch or that DC had a better 1-2 first years is utterly irrelevant, it's like saying Amiga and Mega Drive were better than SNES because they were better in the short term. A slow start of a console that brought the demise of a console with more games is worse, right.

 

It's all a matter of opinion as to what's better. Dreamcast graphics appeal more to me because of how bright and exciting they generally are. Its controller's d-pad and triggers are far superior to those of Dreamcast for certain types of games, and I'll never understand why people tend to whine about Dreamcast's controller only having one analog stick. Personally, I felt that the face buttons worked just fine, and I can't stand using two analog sticks at once, for some reason. And games like MDK2 are far easier to control on a Dreamcast controller, mainly due to how ideal the placement of the analog stick in relation to the d-pad. (Enabling and disabling weapons with Max is very quick.) And the game library argument has been done. Really, you can't expect a console that was around for such a short period of time to have more games than one that was around for a much longer time. And DVD support...really, who cares? I don't. It's funny, though, because I bought a PlayStation 2 for Amplitude (Really, it's the only PlayStation 2 game that I couldn't live without.), but I really only tend to use it whenever I need to capture DVD footage in my room.

 

And PlayStation 2's game library isn't what did the trick early on; it was brand loyalty and Sega's financial issues, among other things.

 

Fine, I'll return to my futile and superficial gaming experience.

 

While I realize that you're being sarcastic, I do thank you for saying what I wanted to hear. XD

 

Mega Drive/Genesis was definitely better than SNES though!

 

This discussion is getting better by the minute, and I agree completely!

 

My point is just own them all and appreciate what you like. (except xbox,hate that damn thing and I have a pc anyway)

 

Are you referring to the original Xbox or the Xbox 360? I could see your PC argument with Xbox 360, but Xbox has some great games, namely Jet Set Radio Future, Panzer Dragoon Orta and Shenmue II.

[AtticGamer]

In Sega fans' case, blindness is bliss I suppose.

Edited April 24, 2009 by AtticGamer

[moycon]

All I know I have a hankerin to break out my Dreamcast after all this talk.

I'm dying to play through Shadowman (again)

[Artlover]

Physcial requirements:

 

1. {deleted for space}

 

2. {deleted for space}

 

3. Applicant must prove, with written documentation signed by a doctor, that they possess a level of visual impairement that meets our minimum requirements {see figure 2b on page 12 of application}. If applicant wears contacts, glasses, or any other device for the purpose of correcting visual defects, their rants must and only be made without the use and aid of such devices.

[kevinski]

In Sega fans' case, blindness is bliss I suppose.

 

Some (i.e. myself) would say the same of Sony fans...

[Gabriel]

::insert anti-Dreamcast post here along with geek outrage at the mischaracterization of PS2 owners. Assume as many ad hominem attacks and curse words as desired::

[Markimus of K.]

ok, I've been following thread for a while now and just had to post, I couldn't keep it in any longer....

 

 

RED CARS ARE BETTER THAN BLUE CARS!

 

 

That is a FACT and anybody that disagrees is a retard!

[kevincal]

You show 100 gamers (of all types) the best DC and PS2 games. I GUARANTEE more than half will pick the PS2.

[MN12BIRD]

Whats with you and caring what the majority likes so much? I'll show you sales numbers this and that. Your a Jag fan aren't you? I guess according to your sales figures the Wii is the most powerfull system ever made!

 

So what some people loved the Dreamcast and the majority liked the PS2. You sound like a PS2 fan and that's fine. The DC came out a year before the PS2 and technically it sits where it should. It wasn't underpowered, it wasn't so ahead of its time that it beats the PS2 in every aspect. It might beat it in some but I'm not sure.

 

Oh and also what was with the GC is closer to DC bit? RE4 on the GC blows away the PS2 version witch came out a year later and even then everyone was like WOW they managed to get RE4 on the PS2! Granted RE4 was written from the ground up for the GC there are still other generic ports that are better on the GC compared to the PS2 version. Once again the GC wasn't as common with the masses, it didn't have as much 3rd party money thrown at and yes most GC games were sloppy ports from the PS2 versions and therefor better on the PS2. But not all. Technically the GC was more powerful than the PS2 overall. But once again it came out afterward so that is expected. The XBox came out last of that gen and once again it sits where it should have. No one expects a console to come out after and be less powerful. The whole point is to one up the console you proceed! That is usually how it turns out except in the odd exceptions.

 

In the end whoever has the most money to throw at developers, advertising and/or is the easiest to program for can win. Just because a system is more powerful under the hood doesn't mean its the easiest to program for. In fact many times to often the more powerful system is to complex and no one takes full advantage of the hardware because its too hard and takes to much development time to program for fully. Once again just look at the Jag, 32X or Saturn for that. They were powerful, but too complex and most developers either avoided them or made simple ports that didn't take advantage of all the processing power inside. The Jag is a great example of that as many of us know some games went as far as to run on the Motorola 68000 simply because the other processors (with the real guts in them) were to hard to program for.

 

The X-Box runs on DirectX so porting games or developing games for it is simple. Most ports on the XBox were great. Same goes with the 360 VS PS3. For the longest time the 360 ports (CoD3, R6 Vegas etc) looked and ran better on the 360. Not because its more powerful overall but because its easier to program for.

 

Systems that use less standard rendering engines or multiple processors are going to be harder to program for. The DC used a nonstandard method of rendering. It was different from the way PC games rendered 3D graphics and therefore took specialized programing to be used properly. The PowerVR chip was actually put into PC Video cards at the time but because PC games weren't written for the special rendering techniques it ended up performing horribly. It worked so amazingly in the DC at the time because the games were programed for it specifically. But in the PC it was next to useless compared to the Geforce cards because PC games wouldn't take advantage of its special rendering methods. No ones going to put all their time and money writing a game for that one odd GPU when the Geforce was becoming the standard as was Direct 3D.

 

So was the DC better than the PS2? No. It wasn't. Was the PS2 better than the DC? No. It wasn't.

 

The DC came out a full year before the PS2. It had lots of things going against it. Sony and the Playstation brand already had a HUGE following. Playstation was the biggest name in gaming at the time. The fact the PS2 would be backwards compatible meant the PS2 already had a loyal fan base willing and ready to buy it. Adding to that the fact it was a DVD player only nailed it for Sony. They had a monopoly at this moment. They would have had to really fuck the thing up at that point for it to fail.

 

Finally I could care less what the Majority thinks is "best" because the majority is a bunch of retards. The Majoity probably would think the GC was less powerful than the PS2 or "closer" to the DC.

 

The Majority think the Jag was a complete piece of dog shit, a joke, the majority would compare it to the N64 not because there is a 3 year gap between the two, not because the Jag was actually released in 1993, to compete with the SNES or 3DO... but because it was "64-bit" and the majority doesn't even know what a bit is. The majority things bits means how many colors it can produce. Seriously the Majority doesn't mean jack!

Edited April 24, 2009 by MN12BIRD